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: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:02:41 -0700
Message-id: <B2ADE19E-3201-426E-838A-C8FE46C76A74@apple.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>

On Sep 17, 2012, at 9:43 , Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, but I think it might be like code comments -- it's as much for us in a year's time as for anyone else.

> 
> 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.

sure, if it becomes clear to UA makers that their users are getting annoyed and the situation could be ameliorated by a global dnt:0 setting, they can introduce it.

> 
> We still need a definition of DNT:0 for the exception mechanism,

yup. 

'indicates an explicit indication by the user that they have not asked not to be tracked' is the tightest literal meaning, but I hate sentences with that number of negatives.  can anyone do better?


> at least until that gets removed for lack of browser support.


unlikely.


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 19:03:12 UTC

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