W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

ISSUE-121 Re: ACTION-84: Wiley to describe the reason for setting DNT=null

From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:52:06 -0500
Message-Id: <1F592307-F70D-4F82-B9F4-7D85FB70A7D4@opera.com>
Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>

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.

    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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:45 UTC