Re: ACTION-359: Add proposal for ISSUE-161 to allow an indicator of non-compliance within the tracking status value for testing and deployment

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"?


Received on Sunday, 10 February 2013 22:28:52 UTC