Prev: iframes? something better?
Next: ISO 8601 date format
From: Hamish Campbell on 23 Apr 2010 18:56
On Apr 24, 5:57 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de>
wrote:
> Sean Kinsey wrote:
> > If they existed? Are you questioning the existence of spiders/
> > crawlers?
>
> I am questioning that spiders/crawlers this buggy would survive for a
> considerable time on the Web, and so yes, if they still exist.  If they ever
> existed and were the actual reason for the failure (and not the buggy Web
> developer's code).

If a spider can break your site, the issue must be *caused* by buggy
code, but there are plenty of spiders that don't behave 'nicely'. The
New Zealand Web Harvest by the National Library for example. It
ignores robots.txt and traverses as many .nz pages as possible with
the aim of curating public sites as part of their responsibilities
under the National Library Act.

> > I am not confused at all; I was referring to the concept of using GET
> > for operations with side effects, not whether they were accessed using
> > 'location.href=foo' or using a standard anchor element.
>
> But that's the very point.  A spider/crawler needs to support a minimum of
> ES/JS+DOM to recognize such redirections for what they are.  Name one.

Appeal to ignorance. Prove that you can't build a spider like so, and
that no-one has already done so.

> > Yes, but for other reasons than suggested here.  It's not borken spiders
> > but crackers which should be guarded against.

Or crackers using automated tools (sometimes know as... spiders). The
circle is complete.

Yes, this is all moot.. just code securely in the first place.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: iframes? something better?
Next: ISO 8601 date format