Re: meaning of DNT 1 and DNT 0 when sent by user agents [ISSUE-78]

On Jan 16, 2012, at 4:10 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> In responding, I'm going to try to give some shape to the issues in this thread (both explicit and implied).  I believe what I'm saying here is, for the most part, non-controversial.
> 1. Should there be non-protocol content in the TPE document?
> No.  The TPE document specifies a protocol.  The TCS document specifies a policy.  That clear boundary has existed since at least the Princeton workshop, and it has served us well in advancing the protocol despite deep policy differences.  I see no reason to blur the protocol-policy divide now.  Especially not the unsupported concern that developers will have trouble with two documents instead of one.

I am not interested in the fantasy of continued "progress" in which
every participant has a different notion of what we have agreed
to implement, let alone standardize.

Defining the meaning of a header field is part of the protocol,
not the policy.  Definition of terms are essential to meaning.
Without them, the HTTP communication is just babble.  Since
implementations are already being based on the TPE spec alone,
I will include in the TPE spec whatever definitions are necessary
to understand the WG's intended communication.  The fact that those
definitions are supposed to be owned by the Compliance spec is
irrelevant until last call.

In any case, there is no definition of tracking in the Compliance
spec right now.  If folks want to further argue this issue,
I suggest you make some progress on ISSUE-5 and ISSUE-7 first.


Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 00:47:00 UTC