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

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

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:50:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8dPwp39Pih8qGDMtuaDUPc0SEE-+Zw=fUzq4CYwiWWp1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Cc: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
You say "you can trigger an exception" but that's a HECK of a lot harder
for a third party to do.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

> 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 22:50:53 UTC

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