W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:51:13 -0700
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Message-Id: <4FA713CA-99E9-4A83-A07E-4683BFAB3A7B@gbiv.com>
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
On Oct 25, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Walter van Holst wrote:
> Like I said before: I can live with a way forward that is without a
> Compliance Spec, but that means the TPE must stand on its own. A
> tracking definition is essential for such a scenario.

Regardless of continuing with TCS, the TPE document must define
the protocol, which means it will include a definition of tracking
because no protocol can express a user's preference without a
common understanding of the preference.  Semantics are a required
part of being a standardized HTTP header field.

TPE was just waiting to copy that definition from a consensus in
Compliance.  Lacking a Compliance does not remove the necessity
for sent semantics to be defined by TPE.  In other words, we must
agree on what the user is asking even if we choose to disagree on
how a server complies with the user's expressed preference.

....Roy
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 20:51:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC