Re: ACTION-114 ISSUE-107 : Revised response header.

Thanks Matthias, I must have fundamentally misunderstood this previously. I
don't think this is usable from a third party perspective. How exactly
would my use case #1 be handled?





On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>wrote:

> 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?
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Sean Harvey
Business Product Manager
Google, Inc.
212-381-5330
sharvey@google.com