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

Re: tracking-ISSUE-183 (Tk E ): Additional Tk header status value for EU [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:53:04 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org, ifette@google.com
Cc: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6594207.PRdNXQGCo2@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Ian, 

you know I'm personally against the distinction. As far as I 
understand you suggest to just return the value (can do DNT) on 
request. But this doesn't return what the service actually does. It 
can decide to still track you because it thinks it is a first party. 
But the user wants to know whether she is tracked. This is part of 
the response. Self determination. 

So if you suggest a simple response, you also suggest removing the 
distinction between first and third parties. For the EU stuff, this 
would be perfect. For usability, clean protocol and semantics it  
would be nice. But we have all those first parties that still want 
to track and benefit from the exception. And we have seen some of 
the ad representatives starting to consider to remove the 1st/3rd 
party distinction. Yet the arithmetic that comes with this model 
doesn't sound sweet to other participants that want to save some 
income over a transition phase via the 1st/3rd party definition. 
This is why the matrix (for the US solution) is so complex. For EU, 
the answer is simply. They respond 3 until they get DNT:1. We 
shouldn't overestimate the readability of tokens. The user agent UI 
(if any) will give meaning to the token. So the text only has to 
reflect the functional properties (this directed to Mike O'Neill) 
and can be left as is even for the EU solution. 

Best, 

Rigo

Rigo 


On Tuesday 23 October 2012 16:02:37 Ian Fette wrote:
> I still don't understand the need for this. The server should
> simply state "Yes, I support DNT" or "No, I don't support DNT"
> (or alternately "Yes, I'm honoring your request" or "No, I'm not
> honoring your request.")
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 15:51:16 UTC

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