Re: June change proposal: non-normative text for User Agent Compliance

Dan, 

Should we be a little more clear on our syntax here?  Without commenting
on substance, shouldn't this read:


"Example: A browser which has a first-run option that forces a user to
choose between DNT: 1, DNT: 0, or keeping DNT unset, would be considered
compliant to the DNT standard, as signals sent out based on this
implementation reflect the user's affirmative DNT choice."


DNT is "enabled" in either case (0|1).

-Brooks


-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email ­ including attachments ­ may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.



On 6/26/13 2:57 AM, "Dan Auerbach" <dan@eff.org> wrote:

>We've always maintained that DNT should reflect the affirmative choice
>of the user. To that effect, I want to clarify what that means with the
>following non-normative text:
>
>"Example: A browser which has a first-run option that forces a user to
>choose between enabling DNT, disabling DNT, or keeping DNT unset, would
>be considered compliant to the DNT standard, as signals sent out based
>on this implementation reflect the user's affirmative DNT choice."
>
>-- 
>Dan Auerbach
>Staff Technologist
>Electronic Frontier Foundation
>dan@eff.org
>415 436 9333 x134
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 13:24:23 UTC