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

Re: ISSUE-115: was ACTION-141

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:50:33 +0100
To: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-ID: <47542098.Xbki8P5ZGU@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
JC, 

On Wednesday 07 March 2012 15:16:50 JC Cannon wrote:
> The scenario you describe is something can be easily be handled by Private
> browsing modes. Using this scenarios pulls first-party sites back into the
> discussion and I thought we all agreed that DNT would apply to third-party
> interactions.

I said DNT vs blocking tools. Private browsing is this mode. You know, when we 
made P3P people said, you don't need it, you could just block all cookies. 
Here you could make the same argument that you could just use private browsing 
mode for everything. That means we don't need DNT. 

We still haven't resolved that disagreement: You say out-of-band (and not 
subject to any compliance requirements) agreements will always top the DNT 
header expression. I have some doubts about the "always" and have some 
concerns that it could lead to a misleading communication. 

If the service believes that an out-of-band agreement exists, the service must 
at least indicate that by sending the tracking flag that is MISSING in the 
response headers. 

I think that could be a field of compromise. What do you think?
> 
> On the other point I feel we will continue to disagree.

Does this affect a possible consensus on ISSUE115? We have to get to closure 
on issues!

Best, 

Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 15:51:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:26 UTC