W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > August 2012

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

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:26:38 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AFD32AC3-D543-4EDF-A717-16CB09B696CF@gbiv.com>
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:46 PM, John Simpson wrote:

> For what it's worth I do not see how you can "blacklist" a UA that is supposedly noncompliant if it sends a valid DNT:1 You can write a letter to the vendor, you can call them out for being noncompliant, you can protest to regulatory authorities if they claim to be complaint when they are not.
> However, if you get a DNT:1 signal, it needs to be honored.  

It isn't a DNT:1 signal if the UA is broken and lies about the
semantics.  HTTP is both syntax and semantics.

As I've said before, if someone wants to change the definition of
an open standard, the W3C has a process for that.  If someone wants
to distort an open standard within a message in HTTP, then
Apache has a process for that, and it doesn't require WG consensus.
It is a matter of principle.  Without that principle, the Web
would have been carved into private fiefdoms 15 years ago.

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 00:27:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:54 UTC