- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:41:45 +0100
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
* Thomas Roessler wrote: >How about we add some *non-normative* text to section 3 of the header >definition that explains things a bit more, but doesn't actually change >the nature of the protocol definition? Borrowing heavily from Tom's >earlier text, I could imagine adding something like this to section 3: I think it would be okay to have a non-normative clarification on the expected behavior of intermediaries. A normative note however, that'd say an intermediary must or should or should not or must not do some- thing or other, would likely be actively harmful (akin to putting up signs "do not violate the law in this area" in some places; if a user preference header specification does not say intermediaries must not modify the header, but the dnt-specification says the dnt preference must not be modified, you would have a harder time arguing that it's obvious that intermediaries do not control user preferences, because the people working on the dnt specification did not think it is). -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 00:42:17 UTC