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 
problems. 

Rigo

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, 21 June 2013 10:11:30 UTC