RE: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions

Walter - I don't believe that's a true statement.  Our accessibility team uses general browsers as well as Lynx with text readers equally well.  I believe you're trying to say while it's trivial for Lynx to add a new setting for DNT, it's somehow much more difficult to support the exception storage API.  I also don't believe that's the case.  All web browsers seeking to support DNT setting must also support exception setting.

John - to your question, Servers must defend why they are not honoring a DNT signal in their response.  I could imagine a Server not honoring DNT from a web browser that only allows activation of DNT and offers no ability to honor a user exception.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 5:49 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions

On 05/12/2013 19:45, John Simpson wrote:
> Hi Shane,
> 
> I want to make sure I understand the intent of this language you are 
> proposing.  If this is added to the text does it mean that a server 
> can ignore a DNT signal from a browser that does not support UGEs?

The consequence of such a text would be that visually impaired users might be excluded from using DNT. Browsers such as Lynx and Links are used by this group because they interface nicely with braille reading strips.

Regards,

 Walter

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 14:53:08 UTC