- From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:52:06 -0500
- To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Le 31 janv. 2012 à 00:08, Shane Wiley a écrit : > Description: > Wiley to describe the reason for setting DNT=null > > Draft: > <non-normative> > As many User Agents may fall outside of the large web browser vendors, such as Apps, Toolbars, Custom Web Kits, etc., it will be helpful for publishers to receive a signal that a User Agent supports DNT even when a user has not yet provided a preference. > > <normative> > User Agents SHOULD provide a null DNT signal if the user has not yet provided a preference and the User Agent supports DNT. Shane to clarify the normative requirement. DNT is currently of the following form according to the specification. http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#dnt-header-field DNT: 1 DNT: 0 * What is the 3rd syntax you are proposing? * A third syntax also means that servers will have to handle these following cases DNT: 1 ± (optin|optout) DNT: 0 ± (optin|optout) <dnt-null> ± (optin|optout) <nothing> ± (optin|optout) Which starts to be a lot of business rules to implement on the server side. The majority of user agents will have <nothing>: legacy user agents, bots, etc. scripts coded by users. Would it be possible to assume that <nothing> (aka no DNT header) is equivalent to <dnt-null>. If not what would be the issues? -- Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 20:52:37 UTC