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? 

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. 

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:41:08 UTC