- From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:28:19 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 2/9/13 4:20 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Feb 6, 2013, at 8:44 AM, David Wainberg wrote: > > > The purpose of this response is to provide more useful information > than no response at all. Hence, there are additional requirements > to ensure that the response is worth receiving and to discourage > the sending of useless bytes. Isn't useful to transmit the simple fact that a site's implementation is not (yet) fully compliant with the TCS? I still don't see the need for additional values. > >> Moreover, can we change the name to something like "non-standard" >> rather than "non-compliant," since if they are providing this flag >> according to the spec then they are in fact compliant with the spec. > > They are conformant to the syntax of this spec, but not compliant > with the requirements of the DNT protocol (which includes both specs). Then why not be precise and call it "non-conformant with TCS"? -David
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2013 22:28:52 UTC