W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2011

Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:34:47 -0700
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-ID: <2146415.ozSZ9OtpC4@longtarin>
Roy, 

taking a legal approach, there is some merit in a response header. Whether it 
is recorded by the user agent or not. 
If I send you a message saying: "I buy your car for $5" and now ask you for 
delivery, what would you say? I assumed that you were a non-evil recipient and 
thus you will sell me your car for $5. What is wrong in that picture?

Taking a purely protocol-centric point of view with a logic limited to 
conveyance of the DNT header doesn't deliver the necessary embedding of the 
technology into the social & legal landscape it tries to fit in. 

So I join David in believing that we need a response header and we should rely 
on the watchdogs if people or software mangle headers that they obviously 
shouldn't touch. 

I also don't believe in the argument that a DNT header is not established and 
thus will be blocked. Because once the Recommendation is here, people can be 
expected to know about it. 

Best, 

Rigo

On Monday 31 October 2011 11:59:50 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Sending a DNT header field into the void accomplishes all that this standard
> needs to accomplish -- it expresses the user's preference such that
> non-evil recipients can honor that preference.
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 21:35:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:22 UTC