- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:26:38 -0700
- To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:46 PM, John Simpson wrote: > For what it's worth I do not see how you can "blacklist" a UA that is supposedly noncompliant if it sends a valid DNT:1 You can write a letter to the vendor, you can call them out for being noncompliant, you can protest to regulatory authorities if they claim to be complaint when they are not. > > However, if you get a DNT:1 signal, it needs to be honored. It isn't a DNT:1 signal if the UA is broken and lies about the semantics. HTTP is both syntax and semantics. As I've said before, if someone wants to change the definition of an open standard, the W3C has a process for that. If someone wants to distort an open standard within a message in HTTP, then Apache has a process for that, and it doesn't require WG consensus. It is a matter of principle. Without that principle, the Web would have been carved into private fiefdoms 15 years ago. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 00:27:05 UTC