W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2011

Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80]

From: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:03:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4E960EA7.6030402@zurich.ibm.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Team,


from a simlicity perspective (one of our criteria), a well-known URI
with information that says
	'If you send me DNT headers, I will honor your wishes"
seems to be a simple solution for:
 # Measuring deployment of DNT
 # Transparency
 # Help users opt-back-in

The drawback that I see is that it is course-grained (yes/no per site).

I would like to gather information to decide whether we need the more
complex response-header-based solution that Roy has spelled out
  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html

In order to get there, I'd like you to give me
  Use cases / scenarios where response headers are needed that
    cannot easily be implemented with the well-known URI approach

Or assessments against our criteria:
  Disadvantages of either approach
  Advantages of either approach

Furthermore, since 'neither header nor well-known URI' is a option,
I'd like to learn how we can achieve our objective with this approach.

Once we collected more information, we should be in a position to
decide on what approach to use for the strawman.

I am looking forward to your input...


Regards,
matthias


-- 
Dr. Matthias Schunter, MBA
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory,  Ph. +41 (44) 724-8329
Homepage: www.schunter.org, Email: schunter(at)acm.org
PGP Fingerprint    989AA3ED 21A19EF2 B0058374 BE0EE10D
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 22:04:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:41 UTC