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

Tamir,

This is the same as pushing the entire marketplace to an opt-in model.  We've already covered why this isn't an appropriate course.  If UAs can choose to be blatantly non-compliant, how do we bring balance to the Servers impacted by that choice?  Forcing them to move to an opt-in model doesn't feel fair or balanced.  Other options?

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:40 AM
To: Dobbs, Brooks
Cc: David Wainberg; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org); Nicholas Doty; David Singer
Subject: Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers

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 18:45:30 UTC