- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:13:17 +0100
Ian Hickson wrote: > Interesting. > > I see two ways forward here. One would be to redefine Referer to remove > the relative URI thing, since, to my knowledge at least, nobody uses it. That's IMHO not sufficient reason to remove it. It's not broken. > The other is that we can define the magic value to be "#PING" instead, > since that's a non-conforming Referer value right now. > > Would that work for people? dolphinling? Darin? It's not conforming, so are you suggesting to use a non-conforming value? Me confused. Could you please state what problem you are trying to solve, and why it needs to involve the Referer header? >>> We add two headers, "X-Ping-From" which has the value of the page that >>> had the link, and "X-Ping-To" which has the value of the page that is >>> being opened. >> You don't need any new headers. >> >> Define a content type, and send the information you want to transmit in >> the request body. > > The idea, as others have noted, is to keep the entity body empty so as to > avoid any issues with servers that ignore the headers and process the body > (which is relatively common). Are you saying it wasn't a good idea to use POST after all because of these risks? BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2008 14:13:17 UTC