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

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

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:16:37 -0700
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>
CC: Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D1858FA4F@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
IF we agree with that argument on the setting of DNT, then we should adopt that same stance on out-of-band user granted exceptions.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:10 PM
To: ifette@google.com
Cc: Lauren Gelman; Shane Wiley; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]


On May 30, 2012, at 16:05 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:

> I think the desire though is that DNT is a representation of a user's explicit preference. If a browser set it by default, for instance, would a site be obligated to respect it?

In short, yes.  The protocol signal means what it means.

Trying to guess 'did the user REALLY mean it' is not something we need to talk about in the spec.  If the user was misled, confused, etc., that's not our problem.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 00:17:34 UTC

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