- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:19:18 +0200
- To: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Matthias Schunter wrote: > ---------------------------------------------- > PENDING REVIEW -> CLOSED > ---------------------------------------------- > > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/95 > ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking > preference for a user? > Reason: Resolution in current WD did not raise comments > > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/107 > ISSUE-107: Exact format of the response header? > Reason: Proposal in Sec 5.2 in current WD did not raise comments > Note 1: I perceive the discussion of the format to be closed > If we choose headers, we are likely to use the current proposal > Note 2: The discussion whether to use headers and/or URIs is still open. Er, no, we are waiting for Tom's rewrite. That will almost certainly change the format, at least if I understood it correctly. We do not have consensus on the current format. > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/120 > ISSUE-120: Should the response header be mandatory (MUST) or > recommended (SHOULD) > Reason: "SHOULD" in current WD (5.2.1) did not raise comments Also part of Tom's header proposal -- it will be a MAY + MUST on certain responses that cause a change in tracking status. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 15:19:47 UTC