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

Re: Agenda for 2012-02-01 call (V02: added more incoming issues with text)

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:49:03 -0800
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-id: <9EBB1190-DEBD-4FB5-B2AA-458EAF244615@apple.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>

On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:16 , Rigo Wenning wrote:

> On Tuesday 07 February 2012 18:13:11 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> In the entire history of HTTP, the only other protocols that defined a
>> response header to indicated compliance were MIME-version (ignored),
>> DAV (ignored), PICS (failed), and P3P (ignored).  I don't understand why
>> this WG needs to make the same mistake.
> Roy, 
> no response header, no consent recording(legally). It's as simple as that. And 
> P3P did not have a response header as the protocol was just 180 degree 
> opposite of the DNT protocol. 
> Given that there will be no consent-recording, a SHOULD may be enough. But the 
> Specification MUST give clear information about why the response header is 
> needed to avoid the misunderstanding above.

I agree.  If we go with 'should', we owe to site operators the advice of the negative consequences of not sending it.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 16:54:37 UTC

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