- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:24:56 +0100
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
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