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

Re: ACTION-253 ISSUE: 119 and ACTION 208 ISSUE-148 Response signal for "not tracking" and definition for DNT:0

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:43:19 -0700
Message-Id: <A8D0B2FA-25E6-421D-9B12-D8C86A12AF44@gbiv.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Sep 17, 2012, at 9:18 AM, David Singer wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 16:23 , Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net> wrote:
> 
>> Actually, now that the Co-Chair has decided against the need for a DNT: 0 option by browsers, this option is meaningless. we should stop acting like any W3C standard will truly offer users multiple useful options. What an unfortunate development. 
>> 
> 
> I think you misunderstand the details of this technical decision.  It was not about need, but about a mandate.

And it was a decision by the chairs, not one co-chair, based on the
objections noted.  We should be doing more of this, faster ... one
week to prepare CPs and one week to vote is enough time, and a
quick terse response is better than a well-reasoned treatise, since
I have yet to encounter a situation where the audience's disparate
views were mollified by the decision text.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that user agents don't implement a
global DNT:0 setting (with or without a mandate), which means sites
that need a consent mechanism will have to interrupt the user or
plaster the walls with consent banners.  That's unfortunate.

We still need a definition of DNT:0 for the exception mechanism,
at least until that gets removed for lack of browser support.

....Roy
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 16:43:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:34 UTC