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

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

From: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:23:24 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA7DF9C.904@zurich.ibm.com>
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
    but does not accept DNT for requests to URIs at

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".


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

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