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 15:16:13 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4CF47589-72A9-4799-932C-306D34A5CA9C@gbiv.com>
To: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
On Oct 25, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Shane M Wiley wrote:

> 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?

No.  What the server believes is not relevant to the user's preference.
It is only relevant to the server's compliance with that preference.
So even if the server believes something else, the definition is still
required to communicate what the user requests.

If neither the user nor the server can state what they want, then
there is no point in having a protocol at all.  You might as well
be talking gibberish.

If you are in Starbucks and order a tall non-fat vanilla latte, both you
and the server are depending on a common understanding of those terms.
If what you get back is a tall skinny vanilla latte, the server has
failed to satisfy the customer (and failed to implement the protocol
as defined by Starbucks HQ).  Nobody cares if the server thinks
that anyone who orders non-fat milk would also want sugar-free vanilla
flavoring -- it's not what the customer ordered.

Without any definition of those terms, customers would have to order
by pictures or pantomime, or just make the beverage themselves.

Application-level standards require communications based on a common
(defined) set of semantics.

....Roy
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 22:16:36 UTC

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