BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- Subject: [Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:10:39 -0400
- In-reply-to: <008a3d02-59da-ffca-a0e5-e633b775fd20@gmail.com>
- References: <5yYDGqo4TeJkl7bHRR9EzKMp54jRN4YkhdRsw4DmgMiskGWOzRzRqgHGqWvCE_6uCkUv_I3-f3IvLNqKqlJ0KVsYcs6pkEAgNTs6ufkEL0M=@protonmail.com> <008a3d02-59da-ffca-a0e5-e633b775fd20@gmail.com>
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/27/2017 5:39 PM, Eric Chadbourne wrote: >> Is there any downside to disabling hyperlink auditing in a browser? Advertisers not paying for click-thrus might be a downside, if you like the website. > Not that I've noticed in several years using NoScript which forbids > <a ping> by default. Per the linked spec, that is expressly allowed: [ Optionally, abort these steps. [ (For example, the user agent might wish to ignore any or all ping URLs in accordance with the user's expressed preferences.) -- Bill Ricker bill.n1vux at gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- References:
- [Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- From: sillystring at protonmail.com (Eric Chadbourne)
- [Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Hyperlink auditing question
- Index(es):
