> On May 12, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com> wrote: > > Forgive me Mike, I’m about to derail the thread for a second. In starting to read this I noticed that in 5.1, we no longer say a general purpose user agent must not send a TPE, we just say user agent. This reads as if an extension for privacy must not set DNT:1, which is contrary to what we’d had. > > Is this a deliberate change? I believe that is what we have had for a very long time. Note that the definition of "not enabled" is exactly what you say above: https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#dfn-not-enabled <https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#dfn-not-enabled> and (being a defined term) is normative for that requirement. > The final paragraph of 5.1 has always been both contentious and poorly drafted (I’ll take blame for the later as result of the former.) Rather than re-open the normative text, I suggest we just give an example of interpreting DNT unset as DNT:1 in the EU and DNT:0 in the US. > > Does anyone object? It would be better as a fictional example (because neither EU nor US are sufficient to define all the laws that might apply). Maybe Wakanda can interpret as DNT:1 and Easter Island can be okay with DNT:0? ....Roy
Received on Monday, 14 May 2018 18:00:48 UTC