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

David,

To that point, we should add a new response value to the TPE for "Invalid User Agent" or "Non-Compliant User Agent" so this can be managed correctly with users.  One party should always be able to assert they feel the requestor is in error.  While I prefer strictly objective forms of validation in these cases, this is a policy centric standard so allowing for subject disagreement is appropriate.

- Shane

From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:29 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Kevin Smith; ifette@google.com; Lauren Gelman; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]


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.