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: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:50:49 -0800
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-Id: <D155B1FD-DF73-4BEF-B31D-5511DB9FF8D9@gbiv.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:16 AM, 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. 

I had three separate discussions with EU and UK regulators.  None of them suggested
that a response header is necessary.  What is necessary is specific and prior

> 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.

If you can write that up as a paragraph with a link to the applicable law,
then that would be great.

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 17:55:44 UTC

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