Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal

Not being a technologist, but attempting to follow this thread, it seems to me that there are potential advantages to response header vs. well-known URI depending on the size and complexity of the site.  That prompted me to think that the spec should allow either response for a compliant site with the choice left to the implementer.

Matthias suggested that, "For simplicity reasons, I prefer to choose either URI or else headers. Otherwise, we have to define semantics for their interplay (does a header override the info at the well-known URI or vice versa)"

I'm thinking that if the spec called for implementing ONLY one method or the other method, that issue would be avoided....


On Mar 6, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:

> 
> On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 
>> The one choice that does appear to be off the table at this point (unless someone strongly disagrees) is Response Headers in isolation as this would take years before medium to small web sites would be able to support DNT then (would require standard web server systems to come with off-the-shelf support for Response Headers).  Agreed?
> 
> Not following, perhaps my mistake here. I should think that adding a response header to www.aleecia.com would be trivial for a competent developer, and that the code would be easy enough to have sample code for copy&paste cargo cult programming for the non-competent programmers (read: people like me.) It might take longer to get PHP installed, updated, and running… 
> 
> What am I missing? Where is this hard?
> 
> 	Aleecia

----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041
Cell: 310-292-1902
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
john@consumerwatchdog.org