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

Re: Issue-107, Issue-120, Issue-124

From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:10:20 -0800
Cc: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-Id: <F989BFAD-AC81-4484-A48D-C92B44629E89@w3.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:11 PM, John Simpson wrote:
>> I was just reading the latest version of the TPE standard dated today, Feb. 27.  As I now read and understand it you've got a response from a well-known URI as a *must* and an HTTP response header as a *may*.
> Matthias made the header field a SHOULD as the resolution of ISSUE-105.
> I just moved that resolution down to the header proposal section last night.
>  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/105

I think 105 is different. Issue-105 covers whether the server may send a response header when the user agent didn't send a request header, which we have closed (it may).

Issue-120 https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/120 is still pending review; that's the proposal that the response header is a SHOULD when a request header is present. I don't believe we've settled that question yet. The text in the draft says to see Section 4.1, but I think it now refers to Section 5.2. Should we explicitly note inline that the SHOULD/MUST is still debated?

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 01:10:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:34 UTC