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

Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:07:23 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <1683827.eAuXJ0XSH4@longtarin>
Again arguing for simplicity here, but..

On Saturday 15 October 2011 20:01:06 JC Cannon wrote:
> First parties should not have to return a response. We could have a response
> for third parties acting in a first-party context such as search windows
> that are in use.

I need the (simple) response header (can do DNT) for the concept responding to 
the ePrivacy Directive I'm currently working on (and hopefully finish before 
> I don't see how the 300 series responses are practical.

If I would be kidding, I would say 359 means I'm the french music HADOPI 
authority and will continue to track you. 
I think the response header has to be very very simple. Otherwise, we could 
send back a full fledged P3P file with stated practices or even the compact 
format that is far simpler and more expressive than having header H:300. We 
have that already and should not re-invent it here, at least not in version 


Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 21:07:43 UTC

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