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

David, you continue to reference "the site", but all of this impacts the multibillion dollar third party industry, so can you couch Apple's position on DNT in terms of impact on the third parties? 

Mike Zaneis
SVP & General Counsel, IAB
(202) 253-1466

On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:30 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> Thanks
> 
> 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 <tisrael@cippic.ca> 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 Thursday, 23 August 2012 00:06:59 UTC