> inklesspen's objections to GETs changing server state seem to be based on web-accelerators following links. If web accelerators do not parse js, then inklesspen's objections are not relevant. Am I correct?
No. GETs are defined to be safe by the HTTP specification. Web accelerators are only talked about so much because the problems GWA caused were so widely talked about. In reality, anything that see the URI can conceivably cause problems.
By abusing GETs in the way that you are, you're essentially gambling that no software is going to see and follow your links automatically. Right now, software like that might not exist. But you never know what fancy Firefox extension, UserJS script or proxy magic somebody could release tomorrow.
When it's so easy to use HTTP properly, is it really worth taking that kind of risk?
No. GETs are defined to be safe by the HTTP specification. Web accelerators are only talked about so much because the problems GWA caused were so widely talked about. In reality, anything that see the URI can conceivably cause problems.
By abusing GETs in the way that you are, you're essentially gambling that no software is going to see and follow your links automatically. Right now, software like that might not exist. But you never know what fancy Firefox extension, UserJS script or proxy magic somebody could release tomorrow.
When it's so easy to use HTTP properly, is it really worth taking that kind of risk?