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

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

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 04:14:18 +0200
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7frft7h1gshhoo05g6nsui9qb3e0jtvivh@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>I think you are missing the point.  The DNT signals do not matter if
>the UA's implementation is broken.  A site can choose to do anything
>it wants, including denying all service, provided that what it chooses
>to do is consistent with other claims it has made to this user.

I think I understand the point, but as a site owner I do not want the
option to "second-guess" DNT signals, and as a user I do not want any
site to "second-guess" DNT signals I might be sending, within the con-
fines of "conforms to the DNT specifications", including that I do not
want sites to tell me something meaningless like "If you send DNT:1 we
won't track you, unless we think you might not really mean 'DNT:1'".

My concern here is about "authority". If the DNT specifications say the
W3C will publish, say, a list of User-Agent headers that can or must be
used to filter out broken signals, I'll not complain. But if individual
sites get to decide which DNT signals are broken, then I will complain.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 02:14:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:50 UTC