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

Re: Issue-4

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:55:04 -0800
To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A3463D8B-F537-464B-9C72-C9BA770BE7FD@aleecia.com>
I am trimming some great discussions around UI to reply to one point...

On Oct 27, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Tom Lowenthal wrote:

> ### Default Reaction ###
> With regards to Roy's point on the call yesterday, and later Rigo's
> email, from a protocol perspective, it doesn't matter what a browser's
> default settings are. On day one of our first meeting, we agreed the
> following points:
> - When a server receives a header of "DNT:1" DNT is on.
> - If a server does not receive that header, DNT is not on.

Disagree. What you have just described is that DNT is opt out, always.

	- When a server receives a header of DNT: 1, DNT is on.
	- When a server receives a header of DNT: 0, DNT is off.
	- When a server receives no header, absent regulation to the contrary, the server may choose to honor DNT or not. 

In practice, I imagine most US companies will choose to only honor DNT for those users with DNT: 1 (so: I am predicting an opt-in situation in most cases in the US). However, companies are not precluded from choosing to honor DNT even for users for whom they see no header. There may be companies that want to do this. I see no reason at all to stand in their way. Meanwhile, in some EU countries companies may be the inverse, by choosing to honor DNT even for users who do not send a header (e.g. opt-in). And again, I see no reason to stand in their way. 

More to the point, I think what I have described above is where we left things in Boston. Let's confirm as a group on Wednesday and see if I misunderstand.

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 08:55:32 UTC

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