- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:42:00 +0900
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Cc: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Nov 9, 2011, at 11:23 , Karl Dubost wrote:
>
> Le 8 nov. 2011 � 20:11, David Singer a �crit :
>> In general, protocols are designed such that default values can also be explicitly stated, and currently we don't have a "not stated" explicit value, either. Do we need one ("DNT:<blank>", perhaps)?
>
>
> what about a simpler no DNT header == not stated.
well, that's where we are today. I don't mind, I am just pointing it out that the more usual technique is to say, in a protocol, something like:
"The optional field 'meadow' can take the following values: grass, clover, corn, or mixed; if the field is not stated, 'mixed' is the default value." That is, the assumed default is also a permitted explicit statement.
> It would give the possibility of a service along
> "We noticed that your DNT header was not set,
> if you put it on, it means blah
> if you put it off, it means foo
> you can leave it undefined, it means bloubiboulga."
"We noticed your header was missing, or set explicitly to "declined to state". There are advantages to an explicit statement�"
David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 02:42:35 UTC