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


this makes it too complex (and complicated). I would really suggest we keep it 
very very simple by just having a header in the response saying whether the 
site honors DNT. This means the first interaction with the site, a user may 
set DNT=1 and still be tracked for one page. This is not really an issue. But 
it avoids going down the path of expanding beyond the HTTP request and running 
into the wild caching issues we had in P3P.



On Wednesday 26 October 2011 12:23:24 Matthias Schunter wrote:
> 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 21:00:33 UTC