ISSUE-1: hyperlink auditing requires use of unsafe HTTP method

PINGPOST

hyperlink auditing requires use of unsafe HTTP method

State:
CLOSED
Product:
HTML 5 spec
Raised by:
Julian Reschke
Opened on:
2007-11-02
Description:
"4.12.2.1. Hyperlink auditing" states:

"For URIs that are HTTP URIs, the requests must be performed using the POST method (with an empty entity body in the request)."
-- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#hyperlink0

This seems to be the wrong approach, as POST is an unsafe method, about which RFC2616 (HTTP/1.1) states:

"9.1.1 Safe Methods


Implementors should be aware that the software represents the user in
their interactions over the Internet, and should be careful to allow
the user to be aware of any actions they might take which may have an
unexpected significance to themselves or others.

In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action
other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe".
This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT
and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the
fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.

Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not
generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET request; in
fact, some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important
distinction here is that the user did not request the side-effects,
so therefore cannot be held accountable for them."

-- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9.1.1

Emphasis on: "The important distinction here is that the user did not request the side-effects, so therefore cannot be held accountable for them."

A user who follows a link clearly does not request any side-effects, so using POST here seems to be in conflict with RCF2616.

Proposal: use GET or HEAD instead.

HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [hyperlink-auditing]
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. {minutes} HTML WG telecon 2012-04-19: issues, decisions, TF reports, Change Proposal reviews (from glenn@skynav.com on 2012-04-19)
  2. CfC: Close ISSUE-187 validity-stability by Amicable Resolution (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2012-03-07)
  3. Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals) (from glenn@skynav.com on 2012-02-21)
  4. ISSUE-187: validity-stability - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2012-01-25)
  5. ISSUE-189: uri-web-prefix - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2012-01-17)
  6. ISSUE-188: generic-track-format - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2012-01-17)
  7. HTML WG minutes (Re: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2012-01-12: issue progress, other business) (from mjs@apple.com on 2012-01-12)
  8. ISSUE-181 remove-sidebar: Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-11-29)
  9. Re: ISSUE-179 av_param: Chairs Solicit Proposals (from glenn@skynav.com on 2011-10-29)
  10. {minutes} HTML WG telecon 2011-07-14: Issue status, Priority requests, Decisions, WD publication (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-07-14)
  11. ISSUE-152: multitrack-media-resources - Schedule for Straw Poll for Objections (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-03-25)
  12. {minutes} HTML WG Telecon 2010-11-18: status of actions, calls, issues, meeting schedule, timeline to LC status (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-11-21)
  13. {minutes} HTML WG F2F minutes, Lyon, France, Nov 4-5 Part 1 (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-11-09)
  14. {minutes} } HTML WG telecon 2010-07-24: issues, surveys, decisions, publication status, TF reports (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-06-25)
  15. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from ian@hixie.ch on 2010-03-04)
  16. [minutes] HTML WG 2010004 (from plh@w3.org on 2010-03-04)
  17. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-03-04)
  18. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-03-04: actions, publications, decision policy, issues (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-03-03)
  19. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-03-04: actions, publications, decision policy, issues (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-03-03)
  20. Subject: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-02-25: actions, issues, publication (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-02-24)
  21. Re: Relationship between the WHATWG and W3C (was: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 / ISSUE-2 Change Proposal) (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2010-02-24)
  22. Relationship between the WHATWG and W3C (was: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 / ISSUE-2 Change Proposal) (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-02-24)
  23. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from ian@hixie.ch on 2010-02-24)
  24. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2010-02-24)
  25. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2010-02-24)
  26. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-02-23)
  27. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2010-02-23)
  28. Re: HTTP constraints on UI for unsafe methods (Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5) (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2010-02-23)
  29. HTTP constraints on UI for unsafe methods (Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5) (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-02-23)
  30. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2010-02-23)
  31. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-02-23)
  32. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2010-02-23)
  33. Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-02-23)
  34. CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5 (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-02-23)
  35. Re: Zero-edits Counter Proposal for Issues 1 and 2 (Ping) (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2010-02-17)
  36. Re: Zero-edits Counter Proposal for Issues 1 and 2 (Ping) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2010-02-17)
  37. Re: Zero-edits Counter Proposal for Issues 1 and 2 (Ping) (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2010-02-17)
  38. Re: Zero-edits Counter Proposal for Issues 1 and 2 (Ping) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2010-02-17)
  39. Zero-edits Counter Proposal for Issues 1 and 2 (Ping) (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2010-02-15)
  40. [VER 2] {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-01-21: AIs, CfC/CfPs, and heartbeat docs (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-01-21)
  41. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-01-21: AIs, CfC/CfPs, and heartbeat docs (from singer@apple.com on 2010-01-21)
  42. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-01-21: AIs, CfC/CfPs, and heartbeat docs (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-01-20)
  43. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-01-21: AIs, CfC/CfPs, and heartbeat docs (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-01-20)
  44. Re: ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2 - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-01-14)
  45. Re: ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2 - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2010-01-13)
  46. Re: ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2 - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-01-13)
  47. Re: ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2 - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2010-01-13)
  48. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-01-14: AIs, CfC/CfPs, TFs, plus: heartbeat docs (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-01-13)
  49. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-01-14: AIs, CfC/CfPs, TFs, plus: heartbeat docs (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-01-13)
  50. ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2 - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-01-13)
  51. Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-01-13)
  52. Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2010-01-13)
  53. Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2010-01-12)
  54. Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-12-17)
  55. Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-12-17)
  56. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-12-17: action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2009-12-15)
  57. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-12-17: action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2009-12-15)
  58. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-10-29: action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2009-12-10)
  59. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-10-29: action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2009-12-10)
  60. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-10-29: action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-12-09)
  61. Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-12-08)
  62. Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-12-08)
  63. Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2009-12-07)
  64. Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from kornel@geekhood.net on 2009-12-07)
  65. Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-12-05)
  66. CHANGE PROPOSAL: Remove ping and hyperlink auditing (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2) (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2009-12-05)
  67. Minutes HTML WG 3 December 2009 (from cooper@w3.org on 2009-12-03)
  68. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-12-3: issues, action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task force reports (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-12-02)
  69. Re: ISSUE-1: pingpost - Chairs Solicit Proposals (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-11-25)
  70. Re: ISSUE-1: pingpost - Chairs Solicit Proposals (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-11-24)
  71. Re: ISSUE-1: pingpost - Chairs Solicit Proposals (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-11-19)
  72. ISSUE-1: pingpost - Chairs Solicit Proposals (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2009-11-19)
  73. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-11-19: issues, action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task force reports (from oradnio@gmail.com on 2009-11-19)
  74. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-11-19: issues, action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task force reports (from laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com on 2009-11-19)
  75. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-11-19: issues, action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task force reports (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2009-11-18)
  76. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-11-19: issues, action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task force reports (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2009-11-18)
  77. State of HTML WG Unresolved Issues (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-08-20)
  78. Re: Spec with issue markers [was: Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD] (from jgraham@opera.com on 2009-08-19)
  79. Re: Spec with issue markers [was: Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD] (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-08-19)
  80. Re: Consolidated issues that may qualify as 'controversial' (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-08-12)
  81. Re: Consolidated issues that may qualify as 'controversial' (from shelleyp@burningbird.net on 2009-08-12)
  82. Consolidated issues that may qualify as 'controversial' (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-08-12)
  83. Re: <a ping> (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2009-08-11)
  84. controversial issue candidates in issues 1-15 (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-08-10)
  85. Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-08-10)
  86. Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-08-10)
  87. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from ian@hixie.ch on 2008-11-27)
  88. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-27)
  89. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-27)
  90. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-27)
  91. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-25)
  92. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-25)
  93. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au on 2008-11-25)
  94. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from jimjjewett@gmail.com on 2008-11-25)
  95. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from ian@hixie.ch on 2008-11-25)
  96. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-25)
  97. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from ian@hixie.ch on 2008-11-25)
  98. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-25)
  99. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from ian@hixie.ch on 2008-11-25)
  100. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from ian@hixie.ch on 2008-11-25)
  101. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from ian@hixie.ch on 2008-11-25)
  102. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from kornel@geekhood.net on 2008-11-25)
  103. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-25)
  104. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from jimjjewett@gmail.com on 2008-11-24)
  105. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from jimjjewett@gmail.com on 2008-11-24)
  106. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from mjs@apple.com on 2008-11-24)
  107. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-24)
  108. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from ian@hixie.ch on 2008-11-24)
  109. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-24)
  110. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from ian@hixie.ch on 2008-11-24)
  111. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2008-11-23)
  112. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from gavin@mozilla.com on 2008-11-23)
  113. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au on 2008-11-23)
  114. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-23)
  115. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from ian@hixie.ch on 2008-11-23)
  116. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-22)
  117. Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2008-11-22)
  118. a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-11-22)
  119. {minutes} 2008-10-24 f2f meeting (day two) (from mike@w3.org on 2008-11-07)
  120. {minutes} HTML WG issue-tracking telcon 2008-06-19 (from mike@w3.org on 2008-06-25)
  121. ping attribute (ISSUE-1, ISSUE-2) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-02-04)
  122. Re: Re[2]: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from soypunk@gmail.com on 2007-11-14)
  123. Re[2]: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from html60@narod.ru on 2007-11-14)
  124. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from adam.vandenhoven@gmail.com on 2007-11-13)
  125. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-13)
  126. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from jonbarnett@gmail.com on 2007-11-13)
  127. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com on 2007-11-13)
  128. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-13)
  129. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from jonbarnett@gmail.com on 2007-11-12)
  130. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from t.broyer@gmail.com on 2007-11-12)
  131. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from foolistbar@googlemail.com on 2007-11-12)
  132. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk on 2007-11-12)
  133. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com on 2007-11-12)
  134. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk on 2007-11-12)
  135. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from jonbarnett@gmail.com on 2007-11-12)
  136. protocol [was: Re[2]: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) ] (from html60@narod.ru on 2007-11-11)
  137. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-10)
  138. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-09)
  139. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-09)
  140. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-09)
  141. Re[2]: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from html60@narod.ru on 2007-11-09)
  142. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-09)
  143. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-09)
  144. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-09)
  145. Re[2]: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from html60@narod.ru on 2007-11-09)
  146. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from t.broyer@gmail.com on 2007-11-09)
  147. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  148. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  149. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-08)
  150. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-08)
  151. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  152. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-08)
  153. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  154. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  155. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  156. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-08)
  157. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from adam.vandenhoven@gmail.com on 2007-11-08)
  158. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from adam.vandenhoven@gmail.com on 2007-11-08)
  159. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from dimitri.glazkov@gmail.com on 2007-11-08)
  160. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-08)
  161. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from raman@google.com on 2007-11-08)
  162. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-08)
  163. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from t.broyer@gmail.com on 2007-11-08)
  164. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-08)
  165. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  166. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-08)
  167. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-07)
  168. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-07)
  169. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-07)
  170. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from adam.vandenhoven@gmail.com on 2007-11-07)
  171. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-07)
  172. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-07)
  173. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-07)
  174. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-07)
  175. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-07)
  176. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-06)
  177. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-06)
  178. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2007-11-06)
  179. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-06)
  180. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-06)
  181. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-06)
  182. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-06)
  183. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-05)
  184. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-04)
  185. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-04)
  186. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from connolly@w3.org on 2007-11-04)
  187. Re: [whatwg] Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl on 2007-11-03)
  188. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-03)
  189. Re: [whatwg] Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-03)
  190. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2007-11-03)
  191. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-03)
  192. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au on 2007-11-03)
  193. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-03)
  194. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-03)
  195. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-03)
  196. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-03)
  197. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2007-11-03)
  198. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-03)
  199. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-03)
  200. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-02)
  201. Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-02)
  202. ISSUE-1 (PINGPOST): hyperlink auditing requires use of unsafe HTTP method (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-11-02)

Related notes:

Related mailing list thread starts with <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0337.html>.

Julian Reschke, 2 Nov 2007, 15:25:01

According to <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0344.html>, the rational for using POST actually was that following the link is considered an unsafe operation, because it may result in money being exchanged -- for instance because the link being followed was an advertisement.

Julian Reschke, 2 Nov 2007, 15:32:43

Julian says we have made no new progress on this.

Michael[tm] Smith, 19 Jun 2008, 16:57:17

MikeSmith to take this to group for resolution

Michael[tm] Smith, 19 Jun 2008, 17:01:54

see also ISSUE-2 re requirement for ping

demoting unscheduled issues to RAISED as discussed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Aug/0005.html

Dan Connolly, 22 Aug 2008, 15:34:59

Moved to Open based on submitted Change Proposal.

Maciej Stachowiak, 6 Dec 2009, 02:11:47

Spec changes have now been made. Closed by consensus to adopt a Change Proposal.

Maciej Stachowiak, 4 Mar 2010, 21:50:39

Display change log ATOM feed


Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Chairs, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.323 2013-12-19 14:47:09 dom Exp $