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

Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:39:55 -0800
Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7B2727C4-66A4-4D39-BB53-B2AF06BF757C@gbiv.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:

> 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)

I did.  In the proposal, Time is defined by 24hours or longer
if set by cache-control information.  Range is defined by the path member.

> 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.

If that were true, the header field would have no value because
it only defines what is claimed to have happened in the past.

> 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 ;)


Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 19:40:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:46 UTC