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

Re: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246 Clarified proposal on compliance statements

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:28:01 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Message-ID: <3376892.RoZa6b8O1o@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
David, 

thanks for this effort. I maintain, as I said to you in Amsterdam, 
that the fact that the DNT technical protocol starts with the 
expression of a user preference makes it inoperative for variable 
compliance expressions that you suggest. If we want to express 
compliance, we have to go back to a P3P like regime where the 
service states its compliance after the first HTTP-GET request. 

Because if the user sends you DNT:1 he tells you: "I want DNT-W3C" 
and he gets the answer "I'm doing DNT-DOOM". This is a negotiation. 
And we haven't provided for any negotiation in the technical 
specification. Or are you saying somebody coming in wanting "DNT-
W3C" can just be overruled so it means "I want DNT-DOOM" and 
fulfills the request under those conditions? In what way would that 
still respect a "user" preference? In this case we can just skip the 
entire circus and say: "I do DNT-DOOM". A kind of P3P for the poor. 
I know it would have been sooo simple and cool. But it simply 
doesn't work. The semantics are at odds with the suggested solution. 

Rigo

P.S. Note that I had to say DNT-DOOM as a rational approach would 
assume that the user accepts a DNT-EU or DNT-Truste that would be 
better than the compliance spec, which is just a way out of the 
negotiation referred to above.

On Tuesday 09 October 2012 09:22:15 David Wainberg wrote:
> ACTION-246
> (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/246),
> which relates to ISSUE-45
> (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/45).
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> This is a clarification of my previous proposal
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0012.
> html). I'm launching it on a fresh thread, because the previous
> one got a bit wild and off-topic.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 17:28:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:36 UTC