- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:43:58 -0800
- To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org WG (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Nov 15, 2011, at 2:59 PM, John Simpson wrote: > Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't understand why we need the reference to "cross-site" nor to "across sites." As a user I want to send a clear and unambiguous signal that I do not wish to be tracked. I may be persuaded that first party sites and third party sites have different obligations when my message is received, but I definitely want both first and third party sites to get my message. Thus, I believe the specification should simply read: > > "This specification defines the technical mechanisms for expressing a tracking preference via the DNT request header field in HTTP." No, we've already had this conversation. We chose to use the common meaning of "tracking" because anything else is just too confusing. We chose to make exceptions for analytics and first-party-exclusive tracking from the preference expression because they are not a privacy concern, they do match user expectations, and are necessary for DNT adoption. The combination of those two choices requires that we place an adjective before tracking in order to properly define the meaning of the header field. "cross-site" is good enough for me. We can replace it if somebody comes up with a better shorthand term. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 08:44:19 UTC