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

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

From: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:25:32 -0700
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6E120BECD1FFF142BC26B61F4D994CF30AEE4ED647@nambx07.corp.adobe.com>
> If you chose to not honor a valid DNT request, that's an issue that goes beyond what W3C can define as sanctions

Our currently defined protocol does provide a way to indicate who set the value - the presence of a DNT:1 was intended to communicate the user's intent.  If DNT:1 is set by default, there is no way to communicate to the server the user's intent.  Therefore, it is impossible for that a UA which sends DNT:1 by default to send a valid DNT request since they cannot in any way express the user's intent.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:19 PM
To: Roy T. Fielding
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

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 Wednesday, 13 June 2012 22:26:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:51 UTC