Re: ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user?

* Thomas Roessler wrote:
>How about we add some *non-normative* text to section 3 of the header
>definition that explains things a bit more, but doesn't actually change
>the nature of the protocol definition?  Borrowing heavily from Tom's
>earlier text, I could imagine adding something like this to section 3:

I think it would be okay to have a non-normative clarification on the
expected behavior of intermediaries. A normative note however, that'd
say an intermediary must or should or should not or must not do some-
thing or other, would likely be actively harmful (akin to putting up
signs "do not violate the law in this area" in some places; if a user
preference header specification does not say intermediaries must not
modify the header, but the dnt-specification says the dnt preference
must not be modified, you would have a harder time arguing that it's
obvious that intermediaries do not control user preferences, because
the people working on the dnt specification did not think it is).
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 

Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 00:42:17 UTC