- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:03:25 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: "TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT)" <Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Vincent, if we reject "on by default" on the basis that it allegedly doesn't reflect a user choice, it is even less a user choice if a tool can just spawn DNT:1 requests and reject exception requests. This will only serve some short-term success for alleged baseline protection for the US market only. Not good enough IMHO as it also removes the DNT system as a communication system. Without exceptions or only one answer (no), this isn't really a tool for the user. But what if we create a tool that sends "yes" on every exception request? Would that be compliant too? Rigo On Monday 02 July 2012 13:27:45 TOUBIANA, VINCENT wrote: > 2): I think it should be enough for the UA to "be able to handle > an exception request" (as forumlated in Issue-151). Thus the UA > could be designed to accept (or reject) all exception requests > and still be compliant.
Received on Monday, 2 July 2012 13:04:05 UTC