<story><title>Why Facebook&apos;s &apos;Frictionless Sharing&apos; violates HTTP</title><url>http://andothernoise.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-facebooks-frictionless-sharing.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>skrebbel</author><text>This article is so typically dork-disconnected-from-world that it&apos;s a bit sad, really.&lt;p&gt;Any site that uses SOAP violates HTTP (use POST also for GET-style requests). Any site that has delete links (as opposed to buttons) violate HTTP (barring onclick ajax action, that is). The big mega bucketload of sites violating HTTP this way (GET having severe side effects) is the very reason offline browsing and prefetching never took off much. Every site that uses comet &lt;i&gt;very much&lt;/i&gt; violates HTTP.&lt;p&gt;This is no &quot;message to the future to Mark Zuckerberg&quot;. It&apos;s just using the available tools for the job to their limits.&lt;p&gt;Note, I&apos;m just as much against the whole frictionless sharing thing as most people here. But the moment we allow geek nonsense like this to overtake the real arguments is the moment the world will stop taking it seriously. This is what happened to the net neutrality debate (&quot;net neutrality&quot;? who made up that term? how will i ever make my mom care about &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt;?), let&apos;s not let it happen here.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>almost</author><text>I agree with the rest of your comment but using SOAP-with-GET and non-javascript delete links as examples is a terrible argument. They&apos;re both stupid stupid ideas and can lead to bad things precisely because they violate HTTP. Comet is also a horrible hack but sometimes horrible hacks are needed.&lt;p&gt;But yeah, &quot;it violates HTTP!&quot; is hardly the best argument against &quot;frictionless sharing&quot; :)</text></comment>
<story><title>Why Facebook&apos;s &apos;Frictionless Sharing&apos; violates HTTP</title><url>http://andothernoise.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-facebooks-frictionless-sharing.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>skrebbel</author><text>This article is so typically dork-disconnected-from-world that it&apos;s a bit sad, really.&lt;p&gt;Any site that uses SOAP violates HTTP (use POST also for GET-style requests). Any site that has delete links (as opposed to buttons) violate HTTP (barring onclick ajax action, that is). The big mega bucketload of sites violating HTTP this way (GET having severe side effects) is the very reason offline browsing and prefetching never took off much. Every site that uses comet &lt;i&gt;very much&lt;/i&gt; violates HTTP.&lt;p&gt;This is no &quot;message to the future to Mark Zuckerberg&quot;. It&apos;s just using the available tools for the job to their limits.&lt;p&gt;Note, I&apos;m just as much against the whole frictionless sharing thing as most people here. But the moment we allow geek nonsense like this to overtake the real arguments is the moment the world will stop taking it seriously. This is what happened to the net neutrality debate (&quot;net neutrality&quot;? who made up that term? how will i ever make my mom care about &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt;?), let&apos;s not let it happen here.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rberdeen</author><text>Agreed. I can&apos;t imagine that any meaningful percentage of Facebook users care about the HTTP spec.&lt;p&gt;JavaScript in modern web apps has made the distinction between GET and other HTTP methods irrelevant to users. Simply changing these &quot;frictionless sharing&quot; apps to use POST instead of GET doesn&apos;t address anyone&apos;s concerns.</text></comment>