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 23:52:04 -0800
Message-Id: <82886FE5-B35C-4036-8F24-AE8B093D57F7@aleecia.com>
To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>

On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:42 PM, David Singer wrote:

[ůsnipů]

> "We noticed your header was missing, or set explicitly to "declined to state".  There are advantages to an explicit statementů"

This is what I am trying to understand. What advantages would there be for an explicit statement that DNT is not set? We already know there will be many users with older browsers that cannot (readily) set DNT for some time to come while they slowly upgrade, so sites getting DNT signals have to deal with the unset case no matter what. What does an explicit "not stated" setting have as an advantage over not sending anything? Can anyone come up with a use case here?

	Aleecia
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 07:52:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:22 UTC