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

Re: ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user?

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:24:56 +0100
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Message-Id: <64818D36-24C8-4BBE-ACD4-8B1975EEF5E8@w3.org>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
On 2012-01-06, at 15:16 +0100, Rigo Wenning wrote:

> My initial aim in issue 95 (I was cited) was, that the DNT Specification makes 
> assertions over HTTP behavior. This may cause trouble as you indicate below, 
> because we specify in foreign territory. My argument is purely formalistc: We 
> should not express normative expectations on things that are ruled elsewhere. 
> Because this adds confusion and someone reading only the HTTP Specification 
> will not be aware of the requirements by the DNT Specification. And your DNT 
> header will pass by networks who do not know about the DNT Specification.
> 
> So why I'm very comfortable having even a strong preference/expectation 
> expressed in the DNT Specification that intermediaries should not tinker with 
> the DNT header, we would have to liaise with the HTTP WG to ask them to write 
> that normatively into _their_ Specification.

No.  I pointed that out before:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2011Dec/0203.html

And for completeness' sake, an updated link to the relevant HTTP spec text:
	https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18#section-3.1

> Again, we all agree on the desired outcome. The rest is a formalistic argument 
> that is about social rulemaking rules. And there it makes sense not to 
> trespass into the HTTP Specification (e.g. what about caching etc).

You're trying to defend the right high-level principle here, but it doesn't apply in this particular case.
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 14:25:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:30 UTC