- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:18:17 -0700
- To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Apr 13, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > 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) Hmm, no, never mind -- that won't work in general. What I can do is define the first character as TSV and then allow the string to contain additional characters only when TSV=! (just for testing). That way you can test whatever you need. ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 13 April 2013 23:18:14 UTC