(unknown charset) Re: tracking-ISSUE-120: Should the response header be mandatory (MUST) or recommended (SHOULD) [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

Hi Shane,

thanks for pointing this out. Yes, there is a proposal on the table
and the counterproposal exists, too ("replace SHOULD by MUST").
I opened the issue to give 'a home' to this discussion.

My goal is to better understand the pro/cons of both solutions.

Regards,
matthias

On 1/31/2012 3:23 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> I believe draft text has already been provided for this issue - was this opened to track it separately?
> 
> <Sent by Matthias on 1/19>
> 
> --------------------------------------
> A site that receives DNT;1 MUST follow the corresponding practices as defined in the [standards compliance] document and SHOULD send a corresponding DNT response header.
> 
> Note: If a site chooses not to send a response header, then the user agent does not obtain information whether the preference has been accepted or not. This may have negative consequences for the site such as:
>  - Preventive measures by user agents
>  - Being flagged as non-compliant by scanning tools that look for response headers
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:28 PM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: tracking-ISSUE-120: Should the response header be mandatory (MUST) or recommended (SHOULD) [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
> 
> 
> tracking-ISSUE-120: Should the response header be mandatory (MUST) or recommended (SHOULD) [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/120
> 
> Raised by: Matthias Schunter
> On product: Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
> 
> We had discussions whether the response header should be mandatory (MUST; A site not sending a header is deemed non-compliant) or recommended (SHOULD; user agent cannot derive compliance but will usually assume non-compliance if header is missing).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 13:11:34 UTC