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

Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:28:55 -0700
Cc: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <76DCC2A8-9B6E-4D9E-95CA-A6757BB4E271@apple.com>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>

On Jun 1, 2012, at 14:22 , Shane Wiley wrote:

> David,
>  
> I disagree.  If you know that an UA is non-compliant, it should be fair to NOT honor the DNT signal from that non-compliant UA and message this back to the user in the well-known URI or Response Header.  Further, we can provide information for the user to use a UA that is DNT compliant if they wish for their preference to be honored in that regard.
>  

OK, I think we will have to agree to disagree.  I can't think of any other spec., off hand, that allows one end to 'misbehave' if they believe the other end is misbehaving.  There *are* specs that deal with what you do if you see actual invalid values, incorrect responses, etc., but none that I know of that allow you to conclude 'you didn't really mean that' and do something other than what was signalled.

I still don't know how you tell the difference between a user who agree with, and wanted, the choice, and a user who wasn't aware of it.



David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 21:29:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:30 UTC