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

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

From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:40:02 -0600
To: <ifette@google.com>
CC: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBFE01B5.3154%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Nope. Still fails your test.

You have no idea who made the decision. So using your logic every copy of
MSIE is non compliant because Microsoft shipped it by default. If I get a
copy of windows 8, turn it off and then turn it on BEFORE I send a request
to a server how do you know?

The server only knows one thing – DNT:1 that's it. It has NO idea who set
it, you, the OEM or a 3rd party add on.



Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752


From:  "Ian Fette   (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com>
Reply-To:  <ifette@google.com>
Date:  Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:36 AM
To:  Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Cc:  Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>,
Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

> The point is that with IE your decision is masked by MSFT's default. If you
> turn it off, I know that you've made a decision, but if you turn it back on
> again I have no way of knowing if you're a user that made a decision or not.
> 
> With FF it is __NOT__ proposed to be "off" by default. It is proposed to be
> unset by default. You turn it on I know you made an explicit decision. You set
> it to off and I know you made an explicit decision.
> 
> -Ian
> 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Nope.
>> 
>> I install MSIE and it's on by default. So I turn it off. 2 days later I
>> decide I want to turn it on again.
>> 
>> I install FF and it's off by default. So I turn it on. 2 days later I decide
>> I want to turn it off again.
>> 
>> There's no functional difference between those two statements. The spec
>> cannot determine "who" turned it on or off.
>> 
>> 
>> Peter
>> ___________________________________
>> Peter J. Cranstone
>> 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752>
>> 
>> 
>> From:  "Ian Fette   (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com>
>> Reply-To:  <ifette@google.com>
>> Date:  Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:24 AM
>> To:  Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
>> Cc:  Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>,
>> Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> 
>> Subject:  Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance
>> 
>>> The difference is that with IE you can't tell, and with FF you can tell.
>>> 
>>> As for being set by intermediary, we prohibited that in the spec as well,
>>> but there's not a great way to tell this. Presumably you might see something
>>> like "100% of users coming from this ASN are using DNT" if you cared to
>>> look, but it is a much harder question.
>>> 
>>> -Ian 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Nick,
>>>> 
>>>> Question: How do you know if this is 'truly the preference of the user'?
>>>> 
>>>> For example
>>>> 1. I install Windows 8 and MSIE sends the DNT:1 header by default.
>>>> 2. I install Firefox 12 or 13 and then turn on DNT:1
>>>> What's the difference that you can determine with server code?
>>>> 
>>>> Second question: How do you know it's been set by a vendor or intermediary?
>>>> * Proxy server adds DNT:1 to all outgoing HTTP requests.
>>>> * Server sees DNT:1 on the incoming request ­ there's been NO other change
>>>> to the UA
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Peter
>>>> ___________________________________
>>>> Peter J. Cranstone
>>>> 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From:  Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
>>>> Date:  Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:26 AM
>>>> To:  "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>
>>>> Cc:  Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, W3 Tracking
>>>> <public-tracking@w3.org>
>>>> 
>>>> Subject:  Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance
>>>> Resent-From:  W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
>>>> Resent-Date:  Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:27:03 +0000
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think the problem is that compliance is based on both sides ability to
>>>>>> honor user preference.  If one side forges user preference, and the other
>>>>>> side can correctly only be compliant by acting on actual user preference,
>>>>>> there is an untenable situation.  Where a UA sends a well formed header
>>>>>> absent having obtained a preference from the user, the recipient server
>>>>>> will always be forced into non-compliance, no matter which action it
>>>>>> takes. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Two cases come to mind:
>>>>>> 1. If a UA sends a DNT:1 by default, AND this is truly the preference of
>>>>>> the user, if the server fails to respond accordingly to DNT:1  then
>>>>>> arguably compliance has not been achieved.
>>>>>> 2. If, conversely, a server honors a well formed DNT:1 set by a vendor or
>>>>>> intermediary, absent such being the actual preference of the the user,
>>>>>> again preference has not been honored and compliance not maintained.
>>>>> For the second case: I'm not aware of anything in draft specifications
>>>>> that would make a server non-compliant if it treated a user that hadn't
>>>>> expressed a DNT:1 preference as if it had. For example, we don't have any
>>>>> requirements that a user who arrives with DNT:0 must be tracked. You might
>>>>> confuse a user if you provide a very different experience under DNT:1 and
>>>>> it was inserted by an intermediary unbeknownst to the user, but I don't
>>>>> see any issues with compliance with this group's specifications.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Nick
>>> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 14:40:50 UTC

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