ISSUE-47: Should the response from the server indicate a policy that describes the DNT practices of the server?
Should the response from the server indicate a policy that describes the DNT practices of the server?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
- Raised by:
- Opened on:
- 2011-09-21
- Description:
- Either by means of a header with URI pointing to the policy (Old version of ISSUE-47) or by means of a well-known URL (ISSUE-80; now closed and superseded by this issue)
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: Please Re-Open Issue-47 (from chris.mejia@iab.net on 2013-11-01)
- Re: Please Re-Open Issue-47 (from singer@apple.com on 2013-11-01)
- Re: Please Re-Open Issue-47 (from chris.mejia@iab.net on 2013-10-30)
- RE: Please Re-Open Issue-47 (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2013-10-30)
- Please Re-Open Issue-47 (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2013-10-30)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com on 2012-08-27)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from tisrael@cippic.ca on 2012-08-25)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-08-25)
- SUMMARY: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-08-25)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from singer@apple.com on 2012-08-24)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from vigoel@adobe.com on 2012-08-23)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from gelman@blurryedge.com on 2012-08-23)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from singer@apple.com on 2012-08-23)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from vigoel@adobe.com on 2012-08-23)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from tisrael@cippic.ca on 2012-08-20)
- RE: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-08-20)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from singer@apple.com on 2012-08-20)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from david@networkadvertising.org on 2012-08-19)
- Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from haakonfb@opera.com on 2012-08-17)
- RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-08-15)
- Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20] (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-08-07)
- Re: Agenda for July 18, 2012 DNT WG Call on TPE (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-07-18)
- Issues mentioned in the TPE document, or non-closed in the database and applying to TPE (from singer@apple.com on 2012-04-10)
- Tracking Status Hybrid (from tom@mozilla.com on 2012-04-05)
- RE: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-05)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-05)
- RE: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-05)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-05)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-05)
- Re: ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-02-22)
- Re: ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-02-13)
- ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-02-11)
- Re: ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header. (from ktrilli@truste.com on 2012-02-08)
- Re: ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header. (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-02-05)
- Re: ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header. (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-02-05)
- ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header. (from tom@mozilla.com on 2012-02-03)
- diff of TPE editing since the FPWD (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-01-10)
- RE: Proposed Agenda for 2011-11-30 TPWG call (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2011-11-30)
- RE: Proposed Agenda for 2011-11-30 TPWG call (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2011-11-30)
- Proposed Agenda for 2011-11-30 TPWG call (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-11-30)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from karld@opera.com on 2011-10-28)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-28)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from ronansan@gmail.com on 2011-10-28)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from rigo@w3.org on 2011-10-28)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from ronansan@gmail.com on 2011-10-27)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-27)
- RE: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2011-10-27)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-10-27)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-27)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from rigo@w3.org on 2011-10-26)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-26)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from karld@opera.com on 2011-10-21)
- Re: Agenda for 2011-10-12 DNT Workgroup Meeting (from npdoty@w3.org on 2011-10-13)
- Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-13)
- Re: Agenda for 2011-10-12 DNT Workgroup Meeting (from nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de on 2011-10-11)
- Agenda for 2011-10-12 DNT Workgroup Meeting (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-11)
- Re: Agenda for 2011-10-05 TPWG call (from npdoty@w3.org on 2011-10-09)
- Agenda for 2011-10-04 TPWG call (from aleecia@aleecia.com on 2011-10-04)
- Response Headers [ISSUE-47,ISSUE-48,ISSUE-51,ISSUE-76,ISSUE-79,ISSUE-80,ISSUE-81,ISSUE-87] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-04)
- ISSUE-47: Should the response from the server point to a URI of a policy (or an existing protocol) rather than a single bit in the protocol? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-09-21)
Related notes:
[tlr]: candidates: HTTP link relationship, .well-known, ...
21 Sep 2011, 21:32:542011-10-26: The current proposal includes an informational URL where the user can obtain additional information.
Matthias Schunter, 27 Oct 2011, 15:01:01Display change log