- From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:40:21 -0400
- To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
- CC: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
I still think a lot of problems can be solved and confusion avoided if the TPE incorporates a mechanism for confirming user preferences in cases of conflict. Best, Tamir On 8/21/2012 2:26 PM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: > David, > > I would suggest that this is already implicit and much more basic. We all > agree that UAs MUST only send a signal that reflects a user's preference > (unless someone wants to flip this and say that it is okay to send a > signal which does not reflect a user's preference). What this means then > is that if you want the advantages coming from the ability to send any > signal, you have the responsibility to ensure that the signal you send > accurately reflects a user's preference. I am assuming we are on safe > ground to say that if a UA sends a signal which does not reflect user > preference it is out of compliance? > > > I have no doubt that doing this might, in reality, mean that that the UA > must be the only one to seek preference, but I am not sure there is an > easy way around this. If my duty (form which I gain benefit) is to > represent someone else's preference accurately, I need to: 1) ensure they > are adequately informed about the issue on which they are rendering a > preference and 2) only where 1) is satisfied represent that determined > preference. If you don't have this, you have a hole you can drive a truck > through. A user could elect 1 or 0 as their true preference; 3rd party > software can reverse the decision and UA sends new "false" signal. If it > isn't the UA's responsibility to maintain preference, who would be "out of > compliance"? The answer "no one" undermines the spec. > > -Brooks
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 18:40:58 UTC