- 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>
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