Some (myself included) object to a general signal for noncompliance. The shared concern is that websites will claim they "implement Do Not Track" (i.e. the TPE protocol) when they do not implement the TCS compliance policy. There seemed to be greater comfort with a noncompliance signal scoped solely to temporary testing. I would still be uneasy. Jonathan On Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 2:28 PM, David Wainberg wrote: > > 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 22:44:16 UTC