- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:39:55 -0800
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > Roy, > > On Wednesday 07 March 2012 04:18:22 Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>> But then you have the same as the header but you added another round >>> trip. >> Two, actually, but I am not worried about it because the tracking >> status is not transferred on every response (unlike the current >> header proposal). > > In this case you need to define a range of URIs and a time the response > covers, because otherwise, the semantics of the question - response couple is > incomplete and will not allow to draw the legal conclusions we want to draw. > (consent, commitment) I did. In the proposal, Time is defined by 24hours or longer if set by cache-control information. Range is defined by the path member. > So I maintain that you're exactly repeating P3P here. > > The smart thing about the DNT-header approach is that a resource is requested > with a DNT header and the response concerns exactly that resource. This is > scoping the semantics nicely and naturally without having to describe > everything in advance. If that were true, the header field would have no value because it only defines what is claimed to have happened in the past. > The reference file you need if you set the response by > a reference file on the site was a monster in the past (P3P) and it will > always remain a monster. If people like monsters, so be it. But at least I've > told you that you are growing monsters ;) Thanks, ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 19:40:25 UTC