W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Concerns regarding "store"-style DNT exceptions Re: Batch closing of issues ISSUE-144

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:11:32 +0100
To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-ID: <1562260.dsKtPypSKy@hegel.sophia.w3.org>

this would remedy my  concerns. I can't tell for Nick. It would maintain 
that the signal is still a user preference and controlled by the user, 
not entirely by the service. 

So just a +1 from me. And no, a MUST would not be ok IMHO. BTW, browsers 
still need to notify the user for geolocation anyway. And there, it is a 
MUST for those doing business in the EU as 2002/58EC requires an 
indicator when geolocation is active. We could just piggy bag on this 
without being too prescriptive. 


On Saturday 09 February 2013 21:13:45 Matthias Schunter wrote:
> Hi!
> During our discussions, we agreed that in exchange that sites can now
> control the user experience (and bogus sites can go without any user
> experience), we now allow user agents to modify, update, ... the
> exceptions to align with the preferences of the users.
> I think that the right way towards remediating the concerns of
> Nick/Rigo would be language that says that "user agents SHOULD
> validate that stored exceptions reflect user preference" (e.g., by
> displaying a temporary baloon "xx has stored exception" or by
> allowing review of the database or the like.
> I would go for a SHOULD (not MUST) since there will be cases where a
> browser cannot do any validation due to limited user interface.
> Opinions?
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2013 11:12:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:04 UTC