- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:11:45 -0700
- To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Nicholas Doty wrote: > From some brief experience implementing tracking status resources for domains, I could see some value in having a "!1" or "!3" signal. > > In that case, I would suggest defining the semantics of "!" to mean "I do not claim compliance and nothing after this character should be interpreted as indicating compliance". It would help in testing because during my testing phase I could have different alleged tracking status values after the "!" so that my team can confirm that my system is returning "1" or "3" under the appropriate conditions. (And once it is, the developer can just remove the "!".) It is far harder to define and communicate an effective protocol if the definition of one field is entirely contradicted by another field. It also doesn't test the most important thing for Internet-scale deployment -- the exact number of characters being sent in outgoing messages. Maybe we should just define it as a separate header field instead ... Tk: 1;foo (yes, I comply) Tx: 1;foo (just testing) > If "!" is a strict replacement for 1/3/C then I can't deploy code that tests incomplete implementations of dynamically determining 1st or 3rd party status. I don't see any need for it in those cases -- just put that information somewhere else. A different header field, an extension member, some character within the status-id, etc. However, I could see it being a problem for testing the X response. ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 13 April 2013 23:11:41 UTC