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

Re: SHOULD or MUST for responses to DNT;1?

From: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:03:10 -0500
To: "Karl Dubost" <karld@opera.com>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF002578EF.003B6130-ONC125798A.006E2187@ch.ibm.com>

Hi Karl,

The points I tried to make here is that
 A) it is testable whether a response header has been sent
 B) it is testable whether this response header contains a field like 'I
promise to implement DNT and I will adhere to the requirement put forward
in the compliance spec'.
C) It is not testable from the outside whether a site in fact adheres to
these promises.

Eg if we were to require 'no recording if IP addresses', compliance is hard
to test from the outside,

Matthias

-original message-
Subject: Re: SHOULD or MUST for responses to DNT;1?
From: "Karl Dubost" <karld@opera.com>
Date: 2012/01/19 19:52


Le 19 janv. 2012 à 13:41, Matthias Schunter a écrit :
> It is not testable in any case. Without response, even a claim to follow
is
> no longer visible.

huh? :)

A MUST conformance statement has to be testable. If you are saying that an
implementer can NOT test the MUST, then the MUST is meaningless. Or I have
misunderstood what you are trying to explain.


--
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:03:53 UTC

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