Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

Comment inline

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan

On Jul 24, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

On Wednesday 24 July 2013 17:59:33 Shane Wiley wrote:
> I believe the TPE UGE is a valid mechanism/approach but the underlying
> issue here is more significant.

Thanks for the flowers. I was arguing this all along. Please help me and 
tell the browsers that you'll use UGE, because otherwise, they won't 
implement. 

> When the working group first came
> together, we had a key discussion about opt-in vs. opt-out.

I think we had a large misunderstanding. I never accepted the opt-in vs 
opt-out paradigm you're depicting. If  you have a control in the 
browser, you have a control in the browser. A "control" is a switch. We 
all agreed that the switch should be should be on "0". 

> We
> unanimously agreed that an opt-out paradigm was more appropriate and
> adopted the requirement that users must explicitly activate the DNT
> signal.  

This is not the question because we agreed already on this. The question 
is rather how to identify the bad actors that set DNT:1 without user 
interaction and a ticket box in a visible install procedure is still 
rather harmless. 

> 
> The technical reality that its far too easy to activate a DNT signal
> outside of user action and there are few options to correct this
> behavior is undermining our agreed up position.

You mean there is too much intelligence in the network happening. One of 
the core IETF principles I learned some time ago is to keep the network 
neutral and have the ends being intelligent. 

<Bryan> I don't think there is such a principle in IETF. Otherwise there would be no role for HTTP proxies and other elements described in RFCs. Networks must be allowed to be intelligent and an active participant in serving verifiable user preferences.

Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 06:34:43 UTC