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

(unknown charset) Re: ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header.

From: (unknown charset) Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:01:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4F33DFCE.5040807@zurich.ibm.com>
To: (unknown charset) public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Sean,

the site specific exeptions do not cause extra effort unless you want
to request them:
- All sites always receive the 'correct' DNT header
- If someone (e.g. a 1st party) has asked for exceptions for some /
it's 3rd parties, then these third parties will receive DNT;0 from
that point on
- Naturally, all sites need to be able to deal with changing DNT
preferences
  (DNT0 -> 1 and vice versa) since users may change their mind
  or exeptions may change.
- You are right that the default state is not transmitted. What they
receive
   is the actual DNT preference for their site. I.e., dealing
   with sometimes on / sometimes off is part of dealing with any
  user preference that can be changed. However, the DNT header
  always transmits the actual preference for the given site.
- If they receive a DNT;1 and they do not like it, they can ask for a
   site-specitic exception.

Does this clarify your question?

Regards,
matthias


On 2/9/2012 3:28 PM, Sean Harvey wrote:
>  2. The majority of third parties are probably not going to start by
>     supporting site specific exceptions because of the technical
>     complexity involved in sometimes-on/sometimes-off states, and the
>     work involved in creating site-specific partitions. What they want
>     to know is the user's default state so they can opt them out of
>     any cookie-ing and be done with it. Will they now be unable to do
>     this based on the current state of the dnt header spec? 
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 15:02:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:25 UTC