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

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

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:18:33 +0200
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2337688.92ULaf9B6s@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
On Monday 11 June 2012 15:14:34 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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.

If you chose to not honor a valid DNT request, that's an issue that 
goes beyond what W3C can define as sanctions. But telling that you 
discriminate one user agent even though it has sent a valid DNT 
header even according to the criteria that are consensus in the WG 
means you're putting yourself outside of DNT. Discriminating against 
a user agent only because of the user agent, whatever the user does 
with that agent is a bold move. A move against the "one web 
principle" and a move against a standards driven Web for all. 

Remember this one? 
http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2003/02/14/

You're not much better here. 

I'm not neglecting the issue and its impact on revenue, but I'm 
seriously questioning whether an ill advised user agent 
discrimination is a solution or the root for even deeper troubles. 

Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 22:18:58 UTC

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