W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

Re: ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header.

From: Sean Harvey <sharvey@google.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:13:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFy-vudp8nWQH1gSYArZ5CXxNGY6nHStm8ma7xPPVKB3ovorbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
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?


On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com> wrote:

> 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.
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 22:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:33 UTC