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

Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

From: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:45:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4FDE17B5.30100@schunter.org>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: "publ >> \"public-tracking@w3.org\"" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Hi Rigo,


after being underwater while changing jobs, I finally read the current spec.

I have finally read the spec and I believe that
 a) Our agreement (ISSUE-4) is correctly reflected in the spec albeit
the current language could benefit
      from further editorial improvements to enhance clarity.
 b) That the well-known URI / response headers need discussion and
improvements and that this discussion is not yet over.
     Roy had the mission to merge response headers into his proposal
(what he did) and the result needs more polishing.

Since I believe that we all agree that a default can be an expression of
preference (e.g., if I install a privacy-enhanced browser that is
permitted to ship with DNT;1 as default), feel free to indicate text
updates to clarify the text to fully communicate this agreement. We also
agreed that installing general-purpose tools (browser, OS, antivirus,
...) is not such  a declaration of prefefence and thus those tools must
not ship with DNT on (e.g., DNT;1). However, they may enable DNT by
asking their user during installation.


Regards,
matthias


On 04/06/2012 11:34, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> Your edits do NOT reflect the text in Aleecia's mail you claim to implement. 
> I object to those edits. 
>
> Rigo
>
> On Monday 04 June 2012 01:37:07 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> I have heard that at least some people seem to think the current
>>> TPE spec is unclear about the no-header-by-default protocol
>>> requirement, mostly because the same section focuses on intermediaries.
>>> I intend to fix that as an editorial concern.  Please feel free
>>> to send suggested text to the mailing list.
>> I have added text based on Aleecia's original proposal that was
>> reviewed in Santa Clara (IIRC), slightly modified to reflect the
>> three alternatives (unset, on, off) we agreed upon and to fit
>> within the determining/expressing/multiple-mechanisms order of
>> the current spec.
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2012Jun/0000.ht
>> ml
>>
>> ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 11:26:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:31 UTC