- From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:01:52 -0500
- To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Thanks Walter. Just so I understand your position, are you suggesting that DNT:1 for the EU might satisfy Eprivacy by - for example - addressing certain first party cookies? On 12/6/12 7:40 AM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote: >On 2012-12-06 13:08, Alan Chapell wrote: >> Thanks Walter. The regulatory situation you describe below is very >> different from that of other jurisdictions - including the U.S. I >> believe >> this makes a one size fits all approach to the creation of a DNT >> compliance document problematic. > >Alan, > >I still quite like Rigo's "Europe should define what DNT:0 means, the >US what DNT:1 means" approach, which more or less sums up that the >standard may provide two sizes size which will fit each side of the >Atlantic rather conveniently. I cannot remember seeing you or any other >industry representative providing substantial arguments why this can't >be made to work, provided that all participants are willing to get a >result after all. > > >Regards, > > Walter > >
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 13:10:11 UTC