Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers

To fulfill my action item on this, I propose also adding the following:

"A UA that allows or enables other software to alter the DNT setting 
MUST ensure that such alteration reflects the user's intent."

Maybe it needs some tweaking, but the idea is that, although there may 
be many pieces of software that can and do alter the DNT setting under 
various conditions, in most cases there will be one or two enclosing 
pieces of software that can ultimately control what DNT signal gets 
sent. That software can ensure the signal matches the user's intent.

On 8/1/12 12:06 PM, David Wainberg wrote:
> This looks ok to me. However, I am contemplating additional language 
> regarding a UA's responsibility to reconcile conflicts (issue 150?) or 
> ensure the user's choice, but I've not written it yet.
> On 8/1/12 1:46 AM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Dave Singer and I volunteered to draft a very short proposal to 
>> capture the idea that if software outside the user agent (like 
>> anti-virus software, or a http proxy or what-have-you) sets a DNT 
>> value, it should still capture the user's intent.
>> Proposal:
>> After this existing sentence in the TPE spec:
>>> Likewise, a user agent extension or add-on must not alter the 
>>> tracking preference unless the act of installing and enabling that 
>>> extension or add-on is an explicit choice by the user for that 
>>> tracking preference.
>> Add:
>>> Software outside of the user agent that causes a DNT header to be 
>>> sent (or modifies existing headers) MUST NOT do so without following 
>>> the requirements of this section; such software is responsible for 
>>> assuring the expressed preference reflects the user's intent.
>> I believe this fulfills a common concept we've heard in the WG. It 
>> may also go towards issue-150 (conflicts between user agents), in 
>> explaining that any software must follow the same requirements for 
>> non-default user choice.
>> David Wainberg is also working on a proposal around this issue but we 
>> haven't had a chance to compare/combine texts yet.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 17:02:07 UTC