3 ms·

Enabling it by default Internet-wide seems like it could be a bad idea for many reasons. If I go out of my way to enable it on my site, I am taking responsibili

by gwern 8y ago

Enabling it by default Internet-wide seems like it could be a bad idea for many reasons. If I go out of my way to enable it on my site, I am taking responsibility for the bandwidth and any side-effects of prefetching a link and understand what I am doing. But if it is simply enabled Internet-wide, isn't that bordering on a DDoS? What about poorly-coded websites/apps where GETS are not idempotent or have side-effects? What about server-side analytics/logs tracking HTML downloads?

anoncake 8y ago
> What about poorly-coded websites/apps where GETS are not idempotent or have side-effects? They're already broken, exposing that is a good thing.
- lwansbrough 8y ago
  Breaking the web is not a good thing. Regardless of how you think things should be done.
  - SheinH 8y ago
    We got web hitler over here
  - anoncake 8y ago
    Indeed, breaking the web by misusing GET is not a good thing. By extension, keeping the web broken by not exposing this breakage is not a good thing either.
    - yoz-y 8y ago
      Like mentioned in another comment, if somebody used a GET http link to logout from a webpage, you would end up with a ton of surprised users. People who read articles by highlighting the text with the mouse would also probably hover over all of the links and would end up wasting bandwidth for no reason.
      - anoncake 8y ago
        > if somebody used a GET http link to logout from a webpage, If you violate the standards, your website doesn't work. Who knew? > People who read articles by highlighting the text with the mouse would also probably hover over all of the links and would end up wasting bandwidth for no reason. "For no reason" is obviously wrong, making the web snappier is a reason. Maybe browsers should only prefetch links on bloated websites since their owners clearly don't mind wasting bandwidth.
        lwansbrough 8y ago
        This is just an ignorant response. The history of the internet is littered with pragmatic solutions to standard vs. non-standard approaches for exactly these reasons. See: <image>, Referer header, the HTML standard as a whole. By the way, if your standard contradicts a popular methodology, it's probably a bad standard.
        anoncake 8y ago
        > By the way, if your standard contradicts a popular methodology, it's probably a bad standard. You can't assume a methodology is good just because it's popular. That's how you get cargo cults. But if a methodology violates the standards, it's almost certainly bad.
- m1sta_ 8y ago
  Vulnerable isn't broken

by gwern 8y ago

anoncake 8y ago

> What about poorly-coded websites/apps where GETS are not idempotent or have side-effects? They're already broken, exposing that is a good thing.

lwansbrough 8y ago
Breaking the web is not a good thing. Regardless of how you think things should be done.
- SheinH 8y ago
  We got web hitler over here
- anoncake 8y ago
  Indeed, breaking the web by misusing GET is not a good thing. By extension, keeping the web broken by not exposing this breakage is not a good thing either.
  - yoz-y 8y ago
    Like mentioned in another comment, if somebody used a GET http link to logout from a webpage, you would end up with a ton of surprised users. People who read articles by highlighting the text with the mouse would also probably hover over all of the links and would end up wasting bandwidth for no reason.
    - anoncake 8y ago
      > if somebody used a GET http link to logout from a webpage, If you violate the standards, your website doesn't work. Who knew? > People who read articles by highlighting the text with the mouse would also probably hover over all of the links and would end up wasting bandwidth for no reason. "For no reason" is obviously wrong, making the web snappier is a reason. Maybe browsers should only prefetch links on bloated websites since their owners clearly don't mind wasting bandwidth.
      - lwansbrough 8y ago
        This is just an ignorant response. The history of the internet is littered with pragmatic solutions to standard vs. non-standard approaches for exactly these reasons. See: <image>, Referer header, the HTML standard as a whole. By the way, if your standard contradicts a popular methodology, it's probably a bad standard.
        anoncake 8y ago
        > By the way, if your standard contradicts a popular methodology, it's probably a bad standard. You can't assume a methodology is good just because it's popular. That's how you get cargo cults. But if a methodology violates the standards, it's almost certainly bad.
m1sta_ 8y ago
Vulnerable isn't broken