- From: Sid Stamm <sid@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:19:23 -0800 (PST)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
> I think that if there is no DNT-header (or you run a script and there > is no API or it does not offer an answer one way or the other) > then the DNT protocol does not apply to the situation, and as such > the DNT specification cannot control the semantics of the > communication, unless perhaps > the various underlying protocols like the HTTP protocol are revised so > they define this meaning. In order words, no DNT signal should mean > what it meant before there was a DNT signal, and what that is is > out of scope of this Working Group. You and I agree here. This is the point I was attempting to make: absence of the header should not at all be dictated by whatever specification we end up with. Absence doesn't mean "track me" and it also doesn't mean "do not track me", it is simply a lack of information and should be treated as such. -Sid
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 00:19:59 UTC