- From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:39:29 -0700
- To: Dan Auerbach <dan@eff.org>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Brooks Dobbs <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>
Hi Dan, I've updated the wiki page for User Agent Compliance to include this proposal. Thanks, Brooks, for providing a friendly amendment and improving upon text even before I could get it up on the wiki. As we have a similar proposal (also a non-normative example about a first-run UA experience) from Jonathan, it seems like we could likely merge these two proposals. I've left them next to each other on the wiki page: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_User_Agent_Compliance#UA_Compliance_Example Thanks, Nick On Jun 26, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Dan Auerbach <dan@eff.org> wrote: > Hi Brooks, > > Thanks for the friendly amendment -- I agree that this is better. > > Dan > > On 06/26/2013 06:23 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: >> 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 >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 07:39:38 UTC