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

Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:10:49 -0600
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, <public-tracking@w3.org>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CC0A3ABC.41CE%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Rigo,

I have a follow up question for you. I was re-reading the section of the
spec discussing communicating a tracking status (5)

In the test case you give below lets assume that everything is 100%
compliant from a server perspective. The server now receives a DNT:1 and
believes it is "invalid" and it decides NOT to honor it.

What does it communicate with other 3rd party Web servers? Does it change
the DNT:1 header to a DNT:0 or DNT:"" header for the purpose of ignoring
the request?


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752








-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Organization: W3C
Date: Friday, June 22, 2012 8:18 AM
To: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>,
Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents
[Tracking Definitions and Compliance]
Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:50:00 +0000

>Tamir, 
>
>On Thursday 21 June 2012 20:34:25 Tamir Israel wrote:
>> My concern is that in this 'exchange' users will inevitably lose
>> out  since servers will have the more or less final say in all
>> instances. Taking a pure contractual analysis stance for a
>> moment, under what terms could you enforce /any /DNT-1 against a
>> server that has decided to ignore it (and has told you so)?
>
>This is my central argument in this debate since weeks. Ian Fette
>seems to be on the same page. It seems that some techies still have
>trouble understanding that. The question remains how this is wrapped
>into messages and into DNT marketing and politics.
>
>For the moment, "honoring the DNT-Header preference" is called "DNT-
>compliant" in the market place. Those market semantics are at odds
>with typical specification and standardization semantics. There,
>"DNT-compliant" means: "Has implemented all the MUSTs and SHOULDs".
>
>A site that does not respond or responds with NACK has "implemented
>all the MUSTs and SHOULDs", but does NOT "honor the DNT-Header
>preference". Such a site is "compliant" according to the classic
>semantics and "non-compliant" according to the market semantics.
>
>A way out is to define those two things in a conformance section.
>And to rename them. An addition to the TPE Specification would read:
>
>Conformance section
>
>1. An implementation of this Specification that implements all the
>MUSTs and SHOULDs relevant for it is called "Specification
>complete". 
>
>2/ An implementation that confirms to follow users' Tracking-
>Preferences as defined by section 4 and 5 of this Specification  is
>called "DNT-compliant".
>
>This way, the semantic odds are cleared. And it is clear that while
>a site has a perfect right to reject the header, it can't call that
>behavior "DNT-compliant".
>
>Best, 
>
>Rigo
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 21:11:29 UTC

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