Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format

Well, let's hypothesize a user-agent that allows the user to request "please ask third parties not to track me" and then doesn't bother to look at whether that request is honored, and doesn't warn the user or take any action when it isn't.  That's not a very thorough job of interfacing with the user, is it?

I think the amount of work indicating that you respect DNT is way less than sending the response header, isn't it?

On Oct 18, 2011, at 15:41 , JC Cannon wrote:

> This is starting to sound like P3P again, where websites are doing a lot of work to send responses that aren’t really used. If it is not for the consumer and user-agent processing is optional then how do we justify asking sites to do the work?
>  
> JC
> Twitter
>  
> From: public-tracking-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Singer
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:36 PM
> To: Shane Wiley
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [ISSUE-81, ACTION-13] Response Header Format
>  
>  
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 15:26 , Shane Wiley wrote:
> 
> 
> My concern with deep response layers is that explaining this to the average consumer becomes problematic and undermines to a degree the goal of consumers understanding what DNT means and how it impacts their online experiences.
>  
> The response doesn't go to the average consumer, it goes to their user agent. How well (or even whether) the user-agent processes the response and explains it to the consumer is firmly out of our scope. Our job is to make a clear protocol between two pieces of software, not manage the relationships and explanations at either end beyond the scope of the protocol.
>  
> That's why I think that if the protocol enables the two ends to be clear, we enable further clarity.
> 
> 
>  
> - Shane

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.