Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal

Roy, 

On Wednesday 07 March 2012 04:18:22 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > But then you have the same as the header but you added another round
> > trip.
> Two, actually, but I am not worried about it because the tracking
> status is not transferred on every response (unlike the current
> header proposal).

In this case you need to define a range of URIs and a time the response 
covers, because otherwise, the semantics of the question - response couple is 
incomplete and will not allow to draw the legal conclusions we want to draw. 
(consent, commitment)

So I maintain that you're exactly repeating P3P here. 

The smart thing about the DNT-header approach is that a resource is requested 
with a DNT header and the response concerns exactly that resource. This is 
scoping the semantics nicely and naturally without having to describe 
everything in advance. The reference file you need if you set the response by 
a reference file on the site was a monster in the past (P3P) and it will 
always remain a monster. If people like monsters, so be it. But at least I've 
told you that you are growing monsters ;)

Rigo