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

Re: tracking-ISSUE-147: Transporting Consent via the Exception / DNT mechanisms [Global Considerations]

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:57:09 +0200
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1411826.t9xIVlBWYI@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
On Monday 21 May 2012 16:19:31 David Singer wrote:
> There is still a formal difference between "no header sent, our spec. does
> not apply" and "dnt:0 sent, our spec. defines what that means"; however,
> it may not be a practical difference

The huge practical difference is whether you can use DNT as a consent 
mechanism also for first parties. No header sent has no (positive) 
semantics. DNT;0 means actual permission. We haven't defined the minimal 
boundaries of that permission. As it is a minimum, I would like to get 
feedback from the Advertisement and Analytics people (Shane, Roy) on what a 
good minimum description would be. (bullet points)

Rigo
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 14:58:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC