- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:05:26 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
On Wednesday 06 June 2012 15:00:00 David Singer wrote:
> You might have good reason. But it's still not compliant. I sent
> you "Please do X", and you replied "No, I won't, I don't believe
> you." I don't think you can describe that as *compliant*. You
> might think it *justified*.
For the record and as a personal opinion. I expressed a totally
different opinion on the call. This was not taken into account.
If the TPE allows you to send an NACK ("No, I won't" full stop),
then it is compliant to say No. It may not be privacy enhancing, but
it is compliant. If the TPE contains no way to (explicitly or
implicitly) say "No, I won't" then we go into very troubled water,
socially and legally! It means that the user can force the
preference on the server. The only option is then that the server
can silently give up compliance which could be seen as misleading.
If I would be a server in this situation, I would give up compliance
immediately for all DNT because this is legally untenable.
Shane argued many times in other areas that if we fail to honor, we
can do so, but have to alert the UA.
Rigo
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 15:05:53 UTC