- From: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:23:24 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Karl,
thanks for your question.
Two use cases as examples (one for headers and one for well-known uri):
A) A site (1st or 3rd party) accepts DNT and will follow
the standards compliance document for all received DNT headers
In this case, a well-known URI that says (machine-readable) "I accept
and follow DNT" for this site is sufficient.
B) A site accepts and follows DNT for requests to URIs at
[site]/main/*
but does not accept DNT for requests to URIs at
[site]/beacons/*
In this case, a well-known URI would not be easily able to provide the
right feedback. This may, e.g., be the case for sites that want to say
"if I am first party, I follow DNT" while also saying "for my beacons,
I do not".
Regards,
matthias
On 10/22/2011 12:05 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
>
> Le 12 oct. 2011 � 18:03, Matthias Schunter a �crit :
>> In order to get there, I'd like you to give me
>> Use cases / scenarios where response headers are needed that
>> cannot easily be implemented with the well-known URI approach
>
> Could you clarify with a simple example?
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 10:24:14 UTC