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: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:56:01 +0000
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCCF036E573F0142BD90964789F720E3141D7456@GQ1-MB01-02.y.corp.yahoo.com>
Roy,

Is it possible that the protocol leave this largely open to the Server to define such that the user says "Please stop Tracking" and the Server responds with, among other items, a resource link that defines what tracking means for that Server?  

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 1:51 PM
To: Walter van Holst
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection

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 20:57:00 UTC

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