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 22:34:01 +0000
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCCF036E573F0142BD90964789F720E3141D761B@GQ1-MB01-02.y.corp.yahoo.com>

I agree semantics are important but I don't believe they need to be shared.  So if I order a coffee at Starbucks and a coffee at another coffee shop - they both don't have to share the same beans or same brewing approach.  It's this level of flexibility that I believe the standard will need to have such that not all implementers need to agree with the W3C's definition of tracking; they may subscribe to a different definition and as long as this is communicated to the user they are informed as to what their choice means there (at that particular coffee shop) all is in order.

- Shane 

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:16 PM
To: Shane M Wiley
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (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 1:56 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.

Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 22:34:53 UTC

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