- From: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:23:24 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Karl, thanks for your question. Two use cases as examples (one for headers and one for well-known uri): A) A site (1st or 3rd party) accepts DNT and will follow the standards compliance document for all received DNT headers In this case, a well-known URI that says (machine-readable) "I accept and follow DNT" for this site is sufficient. B) A site accepts and follows DNT for requests to URIs at [site]/main/* but does not accept DNT for requests to URIs at [site]/beacons/* In this case, a well-known URI would not be easily able to provide the right feedback. This may, e.g., be the case for sites that want to say "if I am first party, I follow DNT" while also saying "for my beacons, I do not". Regards, matthias On 10/22/2011 12:05 AM, Karl Dubost wrote: > > Le 12 oct. 2011 � 18:03, Matthias Schunter a �crit : >> 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 > > Could you clarify with a simple example? > >
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 10:24:14 UTC