Re: SHOULD or MUST for responses to DNT;1?

Vincent, 

thanks for the nice example that reminds us to take changing practices into 
account if we allow assumptions about caching. If we don't compliance is 
evaluated against every request (response header) and a UA may react in case 
of absence of a response header. 
But freedom is very important here. People may want to override the browser's 
reaction and say: this site is ok. Now if the site _was_ ok and changed their 
behavior, they fooled the user and his overriding decision to trust the side. 
We can't help that from here. This is something that the legal system will 
have to deal with. So I support Amy's opinion. 

Best, 

Rigo

On Thursday 19 January 2012 18:36:15 Amy Colando wrote:
> But the average user won't see the response header anyway, right?  And in
> the scenario below, there would certainly be legal repercussions on a site
> that advertised or stated (more publicly than a response header) that is
> was respecting DNT and then silently changed its practices.
> 
> I think that without having more information on the server load and impact
> from response headers, we shouldn't require this.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Toubiana [mailto:v.toubiana@free.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:04 AM
> To: Matthias Schunter
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SHOULD or MUST for responses to DNT;1?
> 
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> 
> I still think that the site "MUST send a corresponding DNT response header"
> otherwise website could stop respecting DNT without users being aware of
> it.
> 
> Here an example:
> - A website X advertises that it respects DNT even though it's not sending
> the DNT response header. - Because users do not see any inconvenient with
> not receiving the header, they accept to visit website that publish X's
> content. - Later X decides to stop respecting DNT, however, users keep
> interacting with X because they are unaware of this change.
>

Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 13:50:52 UTC