Re: Action-157: Update logged-in consent proposal

On Apr 27, 2012, at 22:10 , JC Cannon wrote:

> David,
> 
> I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here.

I'm just saying that I think the spec. DOES need to state clearly how to resolve the apparent conflict in the user's signals.  You're saying that it is n/a (not applicable), whereas I am supporting the text that Shane wrote.

> 
> JC
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 8:15 AM
> To: Bjoern Hoehrmann
> Cc: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action-157: Update logged-in consent proposal
> 
> 
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 15:59 , Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> 
>> * Shane Wiley wrote:
>>> <Normative>
>>> 
>>> Sites MAY override a user's DNT preference if they have received explicit, informed consent to do so.
>> 
>> That means "a user's DNT preference" does not apply to this situation.
>> I see no reason why this should be an "override" rather than a "n/a".
> 
> Because the user is sending "DNT:1" and also "you have my consent";  these are in conflict.  It's by no means not applicable to state which overrides which.
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.