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