ISSUE-1

PINGPOST

hyperlink auditing requires use of unsafe HTTP method

State:
RAISED
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. Re: ISSUE-1: pingpost - Chairs Solicit Proposals (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-11-25)
  2. Re: ISSUE-1: pingpost - Chairs Solicit Proposals (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-11-24)
  3. Re: ISSUE-1: pingpost - Chairs Solicit Proposals (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-11-19)
  4. ISSUE-1: pingpost - Chairs Solicit Proposals (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2009-11-19)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. {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)
  8. {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)
  9. State of HTML WG Unresolved Issues (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-08-20)
  10. Re: Spec with issue markers [was: Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD] (from jgraham@opera.com on 2009-08-19)
  11. 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)
  12. Re: Consolidated issues that may qualify as 'controversial' (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-08-12)
  13. Re: Consolidated issues that may qualify as 'controversial' (from shelleyp@burningbird.net on 2009-08-12)
  14. Consolidated issues that may qualify as 'controversial' (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-08-12)
  15. Re: <a ping> (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2009-08-11)
  16. controversial issue candidates in issues 1-15 (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-08-10)
  17. Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-08-10)
  18. Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-08-10)
  19. 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)
  20. 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)
  21. 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)
  22. 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)
  23. 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)
  24. 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)
  25. 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)
  26. 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)
  27. 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)
  28. 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)
  29. 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)
  30. 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)
  31. 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)
  32. 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)
  33. 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)
  34. 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)
  35. 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)
  36. 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)
  37. 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)
  38. 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)
  39. 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)
  40. 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)
  41. 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)
  42. 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)
  43. 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)
  44. 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)
  45. 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)
  46. 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)
  47. 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)
  48. 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)
  49. 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)
  50. 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)
  51. {minutes} 2008-10-24 f2f meeting (day two) (from mike@w3.org on 2008-11-07)
  52. {minutes} HTML WG issue-tracking telcon 2008-06-19 (from mike@w3.org on 2008-06-25)
  53. ping attribute (ISSUE-1, ISSUE-2) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2008-02-04)
  54. Re: Re[2]: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from soypunk@gmail.com on 2007-11-14)
  55. Re[2]: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from html60@narod.ru on 2007-11-14)
  56. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from adam.vandenhoven@gmail.com on 2007-11-13)
  57. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-13)
  58. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from jonbarnett@gmail.com on 2007-11-13)
  59. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com on 2007-11-13)
  60. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-13)
  61. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from jonbarnett@gmail.com on 2007-11-12)
  62. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from t.broyer@gmail.com on 2007-11-12)
  63. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from foolistbar@googlemail.com on 2007-11-12)
  64. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk on 2007-11-12)
  65. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com on 2007-11-12)
  66. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk on 2007-11-12)
  67. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from jonbarnett@gmail.com on 2007-11-12)
  68. protocol [was: Re[2]: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) ] (from html60@narod.ru on 2007-11-11)
  69. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-10)
  70. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-09)
  71. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-09)
  72. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-09)
  73. Re[2]: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from html60@narod.ru on 2007-11-09)
  74. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-09)
  75. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-09)
  76. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-09)
  77. Re[2]: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from html60@narod.ru on 2007-11-09)
  78. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from t.broyer@gmail.com on 2007-11-09)
  79. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  80. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  81. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-08)
  82. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-08)
  83. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  84. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-08)
  85. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  86. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  87. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  88. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-08)
  89. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from adam.vandenhoven@gmail.com on 2007-11-08)
  90. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from adam.vandenhoven@gmail.com on 2007-11-08)
  91. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from dimitri.glazkov@gmail.com on 2007-11-08)
  92. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-08)
  93. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from raman@google.com on 2007-11-08)
  94. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-08)
  95. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from t.broyer@gmail.com on 2007-11-08)
  96. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-08)
  97. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-08)
  98. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-08)
  99. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-07)
  100. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-07)
  101. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-07)
  102. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from adam.vandenhoven@gmail.com on 2007-11-07)
  103. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-07)
  104. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-07)
  105. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-07)
  106. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-07)
  107. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-07)
  108. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-06)
  109. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-06)
  110. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2007-11-06)
  111. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-06)
  112. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-06)
  113. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-06)
  114. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-06)
  115. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-05)
  116. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-04)
  117. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from distobj@acm.org on 2007-11-04)
  118. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from connolly@w3.org on 2007-11-04)
  119. Re: [whatwg] Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl on 2007-11-03)
  120. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-03)
  121. Re: [whatwg] Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-03)
  122. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2007-11-03)
  123. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-03)
  124. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au on 2007-11-03)
  125. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-03)
  126. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-03)
  127. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-03)
  128. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-03)
  129. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2007-11-03)
  130. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-03)
  131. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2007-11-03)
  132. Re: Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from bzbarsky@MIT.EDU on 2007-11-02)
  133. Feedback on the ping='' attribute (ISSUE-1) (from ian@hixie.ch on 2007-11-02)
  134. ISSUE-1 (PINGPOST): hyperlink auditing requires use of unsafe HTTP method (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-11-02)

Related notes:

2007-11-02 15:25:01: Related mailing list thread starts with <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0337.html>.
[Julian Reschke]

2007-11-02 15:32:43: 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]

2008-06-19 16:57:17: Julian says we have made no new progress on this. [Michael(tm) Smith]

2008-06-19 17:01:54: MikeSmith to take this to group for resolution [Michael(tm) Smith]

2008-08-22 15:34:59: 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]

Changelog:

2007-11-02 15:22:16: Created issue 'hyperlink auditing requires use of unsafe HTTP method' nickname PINGPOST owned by Julian Reschke on product , 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. ' non-public [Julian Reschke]

2007-11-02 15:25:01: Issue dissociated from any product [Julian Reschke]

2007-11-02 15:32:43: Issue dissociated from any product [Julian Reschke]

2007-11-02 21:52:23: Product changed to HTML 5 spec [Dan Connolly]

2008-04-10 22:29:51: Status changed to 'raised'

2008-06-19 16:59:14: Status changed to 'open' [Michael(tm) Smith]

2008-08-22 15:34:59: Status changed to 'raised' [Dan Connolly]

2009-08-22 08:26:48: Description changed to '"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]' [James Graham]

Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Chairs, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker, originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.231 2009/11/16 15:00:54 dom Exp $