- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:44:34 +0200
- To: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Wednesday 13 June 2012 15:25:32 Kevin Smith wrote: > 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. You're digging into (silly) trenches instead of looking for a solution. We are repeating the same dialog for the n-th time: "The WG has decided the UA must represent a user's preference. A default is not a preference. Let's ignore that user agent" versus "The protocol does not tell you whether a signal was sent as a result of a user preference, but you can trigger an exception or not respond at all. Because there will be any number of user agents and options. In case you refuse the header, you can't claim compliance" Can we go beyond that and start brainstorming again? I'm conscious about the potential loss of revenue. There must be a more intelligent way out than just claim "bad user agent". Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 22:45:11 UTC