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: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:35:55 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, ifette@google.com, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <2045586.uyfEfbIJUQ@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
A decent feedback mechanism is perhaps part of a solution. It is not 
without reason that already the Romans required two expressions of will for 
the creation of inter-party consequences/obligations. Because there may 
always be situation where you do not want to contract or apply. 

The feedback (ack-) mechanism will help us with this. Because you can reject 
DNT. Without it, you can't and you might get your ticket to very nasty 


On Wednesday 30 May 2012 17:09:47 David Singer wrote:
> On May 30, 2012, at 16:05 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> > I think the desire though is that DNT is a representation of a user's
> > explicit preference. If a browser set it by default, for instance,
> > would a site be obligated to respect it?
> In short, yes.  The protocol signal means what it means.
> Trying to guess 'did the user REALLY mean it' is not something we need to
> talk about in the spec.  If the user was misled, confused, etc., that's
> not our problem.
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Sunday, 3 June 2012 14:09:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:50 UTC