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


as I think I have said before, sites have always had, and will continue to have, the ability (right?) to reject visits from whatever user-agents they like for whatever reasons they like *whether or not we rat-hole on this* in either discussion or specification.  So, while I can live with the reasons to write the bland 'don't enable by default' statement, I really feel that going further is unproductive.

(It is a little ironic that we used to experience this kind of UA-sensitivity with sites that insisted "only IE6 may enter", and now, it seems, there is a risk of sites that say "no IE10 beyond this point" :-().

I do not see anything productive in us trying to define what is, or is not, or might be considered as, or not, perhaps, a default.  It doesn't make a material difference to the specification, the site designs, the UA designs, or anything.  It just means more emails to read and respond to.

On Aug 22, 2012, at 15:23 , Tamir Israel <> wrote:

> Here's a screenshot.
> Again, I personally agree there are problems with relying on this type of mechanism as 'express user preference', but in spite of that, it is commonly used in a lot of contexts.
> Second, I'm wondering if people feel that by rejecting this approach, we are veering into UI-constraint land?
> On 8/22/2012 6:15 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> Perhaps we should wait to see the actual product; we may be off into hypothetical weeds here.
> <win8.png>

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 22:30:33 UTC