I think it ought be a MUST on a response header, but if consensus emerges around SHOULD, we definitely need to include advice about consequences of not sending it. On Feb 8, 2012, at 8:49 AM, David Singer wrote: > > 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. > ---------- John M. Simpson Consumer Advocate Consumer Watchdog 1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA,90405 Tel: 310-392-7041 Cell: 310-292-1902 www.ConsumerWatchdog.org john@consumerwatchdog.org
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 19:58:12 UTC