ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server?
Do we need a response at all from server?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
- Raised by:
- Opened on:
- 2011-09-22
- Description:
- Can we live without any server->user agent information flow?
- Related Actions Items:
ACTION-13 on Thomas Lowenthal to Propose a strawman proposal spec for a mandatory DNT server response - due 2011-10-10, closedACTION-14 on JC Cannon to Write straw man proposal on response from server being optional (related to Issue-81) - due 2011-10-10, closed- Related emails:
- 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: SHOULD or MUST for responses to DNT;1? (from acolando@microsoft.com on 2012-01-19)
- Re: SHOULD or MUST for responses to DNT;1? (from v.toubiana@free.fr on 2012-01-19)
- RE: SHOULD or MUST for responses to DNT;1? (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-01-19)
- Re: SHOULD or MUST for responses to DNT;1? (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-01-19)
- Agenda for 2012-1-17 call (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-01-17)
- SHOULD or MUST for responses to DNT;1? (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-01-17)
- diff of TPE editing since the FPWD (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-01-10)
- Re: Request to close ISSUE-81 (from singer@apple.com on 2011-12-20)
- Re: Request to close ISSUE-81 (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-12-20)
- Re: Request to close ISSUE-81 (from singer@apple.com on 2011-12-20)
- Re: Request to close ISSUE-81 (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-12-20)
- Proposed Agenda for 2011-12-21 TPWG call (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-12-20)
- Request to close ISSUE-81 (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-12-20)
- 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: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from rigo@w3.org on 2011-11-01)
- TPE site-specific exemption (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-10-31)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-31)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-10-31)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-31)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-10-30)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from npdoty@w3.org on 2011-10-28)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from derhoermi@gmx.net on 2011-10-28)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from karld@opera.com on 2011-10-28)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from karld@opera.com on 2011-10-28)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-10-28)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from karld@opera.com on 2011-10-28)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from ronansan@gmail.com on 2011-10-28)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from karld@opera.com on 2011-10-28)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (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: tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from rigo@w3.org 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: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (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: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-27)
- Re: tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from tom@mozilla.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: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from acolando@microsoft.com on 2011-10-26)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from rigo@w3.org on 2011-10-26)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from dwainberg@appnexus.com on 2011-10-26)
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80] (from rigo@w3.org on 2011-10-26)
- Re: tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from rigo@w3.org on 2011-10-26)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from mts@zurich.ibm.com 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: tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from karld@opera.com on 2011-10-21)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-10-21)
- RE: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from acolando@microsoft.com on 2011-10-21)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-21)
- RE: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from dwainberg@appnexus.com on 2011-10-21)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-10-20)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from derhoermi@gmx.net on 2011-10-20)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-20)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from derhoermi@gmx.net on 2011-10-20)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from tom@mozilla.com on 2011-10-19)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-19)
- RE: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-19)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-19)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-10-18)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2011-10-18)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-18)
- RE: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from jccannon@microsoft.com on 2011-10-18)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-18)
- RE: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2011-10-18)
- Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from singer@apple.com on 2011-10-18)
- RE: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2011-10-18)
- RE: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2011-10-15)
- RE: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2011-10-15)
- RE: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from jccannon@microsoft.com on 2011-10-15)
- [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2011-10-14)
- 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: tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from ktrilli@truste.com on 2011-10-12)
- Re: tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-12)
- Re: tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from derhoermi@gmx.net on 2011-10-12)
- Re: tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2011-10-12)
- Re: tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from tien@eff.org on 2011-10-11)
- RE: tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from jccannon@microsoft.com on 2011-10-11)
- tracking-ISSUE-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from jccannon@microsoft.com on 2011-10-11)
- 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-81: Do we need a response at all from server? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-09-22)
Related notes:
[npdoty]: ifette suggests that the user either trusts the site or doesn't, so why would the browser bother to expose this response to the user?
22 Sep 2011, 17:56:35I believe we cannot since users expect to be able to tell whether a DNT=1 header has been accepted by a site or not.
Matthias Schunter, 27 Oct 2011, 14:49:29Display change log