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

Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:14:34 -0700
Cc: "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A8EF166D-867F-410D-8955-CF086BA91458@gbiv.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
On Jun 11, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote:

> Roy, 
> 
> On Saturday 09 June 2012 16:06:35 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> Exactly what information arrives
>>> so the Web server understands itıs broken?
>> 
>> Somebody tests the browser and says it is broken. 
> 
> This is stupid browser sniffing. And it doesn't buy you a thing.

It doesn't need to buy anything.

> Because if I have altered my preferences, even IE sends compliant 
> signals as they represent my choice. This means you just have 
> ignored a valid DNT:1 request because you second-guessed the wrong 
> thing.

No, it means I have ignored a header field because it came in
with another header field that matches a non-compliant UA.
Since I have stated that I will not honor DNT when set by
that UA, I have done exactly what I said I would do.  If you
have chosen to spoof the User-Agent header field for some other
UA, then I take that as an instruction that you want all of
the same behavior that I would have delivered for that UA,
including ignoring the DNT signal.

> Sane protocol design looks different IMHO

Sane protocol design doesn't start with an indication of user
preference that did not involve the user indicating a preference.

....Roy
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 22:14:58 UTC

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