- From: Sean Harvey <sharvey@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:13:59 +0100
- To: Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFy-vudp8nWQH1gSYArZ5CXxNGY6nHStm8ma7xPPVKB3ovorbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Tom, I've reviewed the revised response header extensively with my teams internally and it does indeed seem entirely manageable from the perspective of large servers as well as publisher operations teams, which is exciting. I do however want to mention one thing related to site-specific exemptions. I am not clear on this point, but want to make sure that adherence to site-specific exemptions by a server is optional. In particular, I want to make sure that, given that the server should be able to understand what the user's default DNT value is regardless of whether or not a site-specific exemption is in effect. The concern is that some systems may wish to respect a DNT header being on (in part) by setting an opt-out cookie. This opt-out cookie would mean that site-specific exemptions will be ignored and the user will be treated as DNT=on in all cases. This is practically easier in some cases, and we would want this to at least be an option for a server when faced with an array of DNT states. In your view is this currently the case in the revised header spec, and does anyone have any objections to this? sean On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com> wrote: > ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 ISSUE-47 ISSUE-48 ISSUE-51 ISSUE-76 ISSUE-90 > ISSUE-106 ISSUE-45 > > Here is the latest version of the response header. I've also added it to > the action on the tracker. > > Editors: it is in markdown, but *do not panic*, any of us can convert it > to HTML at a moment's notice. > -- Sean Harvey Business Product Manager Google, Inc. 212-381-5330 sharvey@google.com
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 22:14:36 UTC