Re: Non-HTTP Protocols (ISSUE-108, ACTION-96)

I think I had the action for the TPE, and sent email yesterday:

Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
> Subject: action-97, application to other protocols, proposed text
> Date: January 25, 2012 18:32:07 GMT+01:00
> To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> 
> in the expression spec. introduction:
> 
> The protocol is expressed here in terms of HTTP communication.  However, the semantics are not restricted to use in HTTP; the same semantics may be carried by other protocols, either in future revisions of this specification, or in other specifications.  
> 
> (and then someone else has the task of saying in the compliance spec. something about using the same semantics in other protocols, if you use them, and it's not an excuse to use another protocol and track people because that protocol didn't seem to have a binding for these semantics).
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 

I think the compliance spec. needs to say more;  you don't get to achieve compliance by deliberately using another protocol that enables you to track but which doesn't yet have an embedding of DNT. :-( (dang)

On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:10 , Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> Proposed non-normative text for TPE:
> 
> This document specifies an extension to HTTP and HTTP-compliant protocols.  A parallel approach should work for many other protocols, and they are encouraged to implement a similar extension.
> 
> Proposed non-normative text for TCS:
> 
> This document specifies a privacy semantics in the context of HTTP and HTTP-compliant protocols.  A parallel approach should work for many other protocols, and they are encouraged to support a similar semantics.
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 17:20:33 UTC