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

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

From: Amy Colando (LCA) <acolando@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:33:00 +0000
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <58271C264AD16547AC61CAFA53FBEAF934ED17A3@TK5EX14MBXC140.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I would be very interested at our meeting in San Jose in understanding the technical impact of server sending a simple response with every browser interaction. I'm thinking of Roy's earlier points on this topic.

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Rigo Wenning
Sent: 10/26/2011 2:07 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: JC Cannon; Kevin Smith
Subject: Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format

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 21:44:54 UTC

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