- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:27:08 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, public-tracking@w3.org
On Oct 12, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Aleecia M. McDonald wrote: >> I am not convinced either Roy or I have the first case quite solid yet, >> perhaps because we have each phrased this as more absolute than what >> people think. It would be very good if people who think there is more to >> tracking than just data moving between sites could please chime in with >> a lucid explanation of what they mean. > > The Working Group cannot define "tracking" without additional modifiers > in a manner that is inconsistent with typical english usage. "This user > arrived on this page and then moved on to that page" is a statement that > cannot be made if the user's movements around the site are not tracked. I think that, if we agree to use the common definition of the verb "track" and consistently talk about the stuff we are trying to restrict as cross-site/cross-brand tracking or data sharing, then the DNT header field cannot be described as "Do Not Track". It seems to consistently lead us down into pursuing use cases that nobody has asked us to limit. Perhaps if we always refer to it as the field-name DNT, and define it properly in the spec, then we can stay focused on the cross-brand concerns. BTW, the definition at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/track conveniently includes +1 and Like buttons, cross-domain behavioral advertising, and plenty of tracking pixels. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 01:27:33 UTC