W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > December 2011

Re: ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user?

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>
Message-ID: <fqu4f7hahqt7r12vf4q9donejsve7391vf@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:42 UTC