W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2014

Re: ISSUES 151 and 153

From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:23:39 -0800
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <33BAF6D0-744A-43EA-8E3E-E27B278D1E97@w3.org>
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
Hi Walter,

Apologies, I don't understand this proposal. Are these normative requirements necessary or useful for interoperability?

We do already have consensus on requirements beyond syntax documented in the TPE, if that's what you are trying to prevent. Alternately, how recipients interpret signals or might respond or disregard seems well beyond the control of a specification. While I suspect that what you have in mind is better addressed in Compliance (if it's about when compliant services must not disregard a DNT preference), if you explain your goal a little better, we might be able to find alternate text that accomplishes it more clearly.

Thanks,
Nick

On December 18, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> I have put the following language in the Wiki to address ISSUES 151 and
> 153 (and possibly others):
> 
> In light of the fact that it is fundamentally impossible to validate any
> HTTP-headers beyond their syntax, nothing in this TPE MUST be
> interpreted as judgement of the validity of a DNT signal, regardless of
> its content, beyond the extent to which it adheres to the syntax of this
> TPE. Any calls beyond that MUST be left to the applicable compliance
> regime.

Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 00:23:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:41:42 UTC