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

Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:10:39 +0200
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6840273.Z3fIXNh1Wj@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Roy, 

the text in Aleecia's email and the following thread does not automatically 
exclude the setting of a default. But your wording does so in a funny 
coincidence to the excitement about a UA setting a default or sounds at 
least ambiguous about it. That doesn't mean I'm a fan of setting a default 
to DNT;1 as it cuts both ways. A browser could ship with default DNT;0 Nor 
am I a fan of this or that position. I just think that writing this into the 
Specification is premature and will hinder a good discussion. 

There are more options on the table than just saying "a default is not an 
expression of will". IMHO as a WG participant, the ice this assertion is 
coming on is much too thin to carry a solution capable of providing a remedy 
to the conflicts we experience. I do not exclude that "a default is not an 
expression of will" will prevail, but writing it as _the_ solution into the 
specification is again setting a default for the Group but accordingly to 
its very paradigm can not be seen as an expression of will of that Group. 
But it looks a bit that way. And this is why I would like a real discussion 
before having things patched in a hasty way.

Rigo

On Monday 04 June 2012 09:01:25 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Please be specific.
> 
> ....Roy
> 
> On Jun 4, 2012, at 2:34 AM, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
> > Your edits do NOT reflect the text in Aleecia's mail you claim to
> > implement. I object to those edits.
> > 
> > Rigo
> > 
> > On Monday 04 June 2012 01:37:07 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> On Jun 2, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >>> I have heard that at least some people seem to think the current
> >>> TPE spec is unclear about the no-header-by-default protocol
> >>> requirement, mostly because the same section focuses on
> >>> intermediaries. I intend to fix that as an editorial concern. 
> >>> Please feel free to send suggested text to the mailing list.
> >> 
> >> I have added text based on Aleecia's original proposal that was
> >> reviewed in Santa Clara (IIRC), slightly modified to reflect the
> >> three alternatives (unset, on, off) we agreed upon and to fit
> >> within the determining/expressing/multiple-mechanisms order of
> >> the current spec.
> >> 
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2012Jun/0
> >> 000.ht ml
> >> 
> >> ....Roy
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 21:11:05 UTC

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