W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Agenda for 2012-02-01 call (V02: added more incoming issues with text)

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:16:18 +0100
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-ID: <9492307.0n2HR4HkRW@hegel>
On Tuesday 07 February 2012 18:13:11 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> In the entire history of HTTP, the only other protocols that defined a
> response header to indicated compliance were MIME-version (ignored),
> DAV (ignored), PICS (failed), and P3P (ignored).  I don't understand why
> this WG needs to make the same mistake.

Roy, 

no response header, no consent recording(legally). It's as simple as that. And 
P3P did not have a response header as the protocol was just 180 degree 
opposite of the DNT protocol. 
Given that there will be no consent-recording, a SHOULD may be enough. But the 
Specification MUST give clear information about why the response header is 
needed to avoid the misunderstanding above.

Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 14:19:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:44 UTC