- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:52:25 -0700
- To: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Apr 27, 2012, at 22:10 , JC Cannon wrote: > David, > > I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. I'm just saying that I think the spec. DOES need to state clearly how to resolve the apparent conflict in the user's signals. You're saying that it is n/a (not applicable), whereas I am supporting the text that Shane wrote. > > JC > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 8:15 AM > To: Bjoern Hoehrmann > Cc: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org > Subject: Re: Action-157: Update logged-in consent proposal > > > On Apr 26, 2012, at 15:59 , Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > >> * Shane Wiley wrote: >>> <Normative> >>> >>> Sites MAY override a user's DNT preference if they have received explicit, informed consent to do so. >> >> That means "a user's DNT preference" does not apply to this situation. >> I see no reason why this should be an "override" rather than a "n/a". > > Because the user is sending "DNT:1" and also "you have my consent"; these are in conflict. It's by no means not applicable to state which overrides which. > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. > > > > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2012 08:52:55 UTC