- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:16:46 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Bjoern, We've been through this already. If you send a 0 then a company knows not to request an exception. If you receive nothing but see this a DNT supported browser then you wouldn't know whether to request a pro-active exception or ignore the situation. Sending 0/2 provides more clarity of state. Sent from Shane's mobile On Apr 28, 2012, at 7:13 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * David Singer wrote: >> I think we are in rough agreement, however, "if the user sends the >> conflicting signals of an explicit permission, with a DNT:1, then the >> explicit permission overrides the DNT signal" seems correct to me. It's >> not out of scope to resolve such conflicts and state what overrides >> what. > > You are arguing from the header upwards while I am arguing from the per- > mission downwards. I say "If there is permission, ignore the header" and > you are saying "look at the header, and then check for permission, and > if there is permission, then ignore the header". My approach is simpler. > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de > 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2012 02:17:26 UTC