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: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:55:27 -0800
Message-Id: <53054D17-B76D-4B1E-A8DD-463E0B181871@consumerwatchdog.org>
Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
I think it ought be a MUST on a response header, but if consensus emerges around SHOULD, we definitely need to include advice about consequences of not sending it.


On Feb 8, 2012, at 8:49 AM, David Singer wrote:

> 
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:16 , Rigo Wenning wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> I agree.  If we go with 'should', we owe to site operators the advice of the negative consequences of not sending it.
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 

----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041
Cell: 310-292-1902
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
john@consumerwatchdog.org
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 19:58:12 UTC

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