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

Re: Modifying a DNT Header (ISSUE-153, ACTION-285)

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:42:52 +0100
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Message-id: <9CAAA96B-B43D-44AC-8FB9-EBE3FF124526@apple.com>
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>

On Oct 31, 2012, at 15:08 , Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> On 2012-10-31 15:45, David Wainberg wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan,
>> 
>> This does not do enough to ensure that a DNT signal reflects a users
>> deliberate and informed choice. First, it should be a MUST. Second, it
>> should apply to any software responsible for modifying or including
>> the DNT header. Back in August I proposed the following:
>> 
>> "A UA that allows or enables other software to alter the DNT setting
>> MUST ensure that such alteration reflects the user's intent."
>> 
>> That accomplishes what we want, doesn't it?
> 
> The consequence would be that all current extension mechanisms of popular UAs such as Firefox, Chrome and IE would fail to meet this criterium.

I don't believe that's true.  The UA is *not* just the core code base of the browser as distributed by the manufacturer.  The UA is the entire 'opaque box' that terminates the HTTP protocol.  A browser that allows plug-ins allows them *inside* that box;  from our point of view, the plug-ins are part of the UA, and that collection of software is responsible for making sure that they follow the rules.

We have requirements (reflecting the user intent) on what comes out of the box.  I still do not believe we need to say more.  If, like Bryan, you want to be able to make that box out of a cloud of entities co-operating over a network, then you can do that as well.


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:43:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC