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: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:01:31 -0400
Message-ID: <50342F6B.4020104@cippic.ca>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Roy your apache example, as I understood it, applies in /clear /cases of 
non-compliance. I don't think there's ever going to be such a clear case 
as in reality implementations are going to be quite varied and browser 
sniffing of the kind you're suggesting will lead to browser wars. Case 
in point:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/08/07/do-not-track-in-the-windows-8-set-up-experience.aspx



On 8/21/2012 8:26 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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.
>
> ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 01:02:06 UTC

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