- From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:58:06 -0400
- To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
- CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
OK -- I am not advocating two headers! Although one for each personality would probably lead to more accurate profiling ; P I suppose my concern was a combination of a.) how far will a UA's obligation to check that alterations to its DNT are 'reflective of user input' be stretched and b.) whether this opens up the door to more UA blacklisting potential. Best, Tamir On 8/21/2012 5:13 PM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: > Tamir, > > You are making this too complicated. UAs shouldn't be required to audit > applications, plugins, etc - they should, per the spec, only ever send a > signal which is consistent with a user preference. If they don't feel > confident that what they are sending meets that requirement they shouldn't > send anything. Anything else completely undermines the spec. If you send > two DNT headers, you are by definition, non-compliant (schizophrenic users > not withstanding). > > -Brooks > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 21:58:45 UTC