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? 
http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2003/02/14/

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. 

Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 22:26:21 UTC

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