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>

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. 



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 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:58 UTC