W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2012

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

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:16:46 -0700
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <268FEAB8-AFEC-4D70-B8BF-C6CCE1EB2179@yahoo-inc.com>

We've been through this already.  If you send a 0 then a company knows not to request an exception.  If you receive nothing but see this a DNT supported browser then you wouldn't know whether to request a pro-active exception or ignore the situation.  Sending 0/2 provides more clarity of state.

Sent from Shane's mobile

On Apr 28, 2012, at 7:13 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * David Singer wrote:
>> I think we are in rough agreement, however, "if the user sends the
>> conflicting signals of an explicit permission, with a DNT:1, then the
>> explicit permission overrides the DNT signal" seems correct to me.  It's
>> not out of scope to resolve such conflicts and state what overrides
>> what.
> You are arguing from the header upwards while I am arguing from the per-
> mission downwards. I say "If there is permission, ignore the header" and
> you are saying "look at the header, and then check for permission, and
> if there is permission, then ignore the header". My approach is simpler.
> -- 
> 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 Sunday, 29 April 2012 02:17:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:47 UTC