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

On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:

> 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

Which is a clear case of non-compliance.  If pre-selecting an
option in a dialog box is not sufficient to gain prior consent,
then it certainly isn't sufficient to satisfy:

  "The basic principle is that a tracking preference expression
   is only transmitted when it reflects a deliberate choice by
   the user. In the absence of user choice, there is no tracking
   preference expressed."

Browser wars is not a problem I have in HTTP, because of the
Apache principle regarding open standards.  If you want to change
the standard, feel free to make proposals to that effect within
the process defined by this WG.  Please do not continue this
argument about honoring deliberately broken UAs; you are wasting
our time, as this WG has even less ability to change Apache's principles
than it does to impose implementation of a voluntary standard.

....Roy