- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:35:34 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
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
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 15:35:59 UTC