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: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:13:44 -0700
Cc: "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <88503939-2237-4C33-8C3C-869C05372BA4@gbiv.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
On Jun 12, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote:

> 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.

As I said, the WG has defined the header field.  If it is set by
default, that setting is non-compliant according to the WG.
Valid HTTP is defined by both syntax and semantics.

What I do with a non-compliant field is none of your business.

> 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.

On the contrary, this move is intended to preserve a standard.

Apache has a long history of preserving HTTP in the face of
anti-competitive behavior by companies that attempted to
subvert the standards process for their own financial gain or
to disadvantage their competitors.  In fact, the reason
we still have one Web is because of that history -- certainly
not through any action by the spineless W3C.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 23:14:05 UTC

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