- 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>
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 TPAC) > > 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 1.0 Best, Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 21:07:43 UTC