- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:41:34 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
On Monday 04 June 2012 13:43:09 Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Please understand that a server would not be required to ignore > an invalid DNT field -- they just have the right to because the > protocol exchange is invalid. Roy, they could send a no-ACK feedback (header) back and be still compliant to DNT as this would be a legitimate response in the DNT spec. Personally, I think this would be the better solution. This would fit the legal dependencies and would work in all use cases, even in those raised by Tamir. There are other opinions though that would only see a compliance if DNT;1 is respected and solve the case in question by saying that this is legitimate but non-compliant behavior. Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 13:42:03 UTC