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 '"188.8.131.52. 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)."
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."
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]