- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:01:31 +0200
- To: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
* JC Cannon wrote: >We think the topic of a response to the DNT header will require a fair >amount of further discussion. We think that a number of other issues >should be resolved first before we can reach a consensus on whether it >should be sent and what it means. Here are some specific concerns: If the expectation is that everyone will honour the signal then there is no need for and no benefit in any kind of response; on the contrary, if there was a way to convey that the signal is being ignored, that would validate not honouring it as this option is part of the system. Further, if the user says "I do not want this" and the server says "I will do it anyway", that would seem to be a "consent" problem in Europe. I am not sure why anyone would make it explicit that they ignore the signal: the alternative to send nothing would seem preferable until browsers were to regard the absence of a positive response as reason to stop sending any requests to the host or resource in question, or some similar measure. -- 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 Wednesday, 12 October 2011 03:01:56 UTC