- From: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:32:33 +0000
- To: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- CC: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "Mike Zaneis" <mike@iab.net>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Tamir, in response to your comment here: "The same cannot be said about a DNT-1 signal that looks 100% valid, but is being rejected based on the fact some ad networks have decided the UA-side settings are not up to par." I agree that parties shouldn't be able to make up reasons to reject the DNT:1 signal and still claim compliance. In this case, however, I think we're talking about servers rejecting a signal from a UA that is clearly not compliant with the standard. Nothing is made up here. It's very clear. In this case, I believe we should have flexibility to honor or not. Binding industry to acknowledge invalid UAs seems to be a dangerous path to go down. On Jul 27, 2012, at 10:48 AM, "Tamir Israel" <tisrael@cippic.ca> wrote: > The same cannot be said about a DNT-1 signal that looks 100% valid, but is being rejected based on the fact some ad networks have decided the UA-side settings are not up to par.
Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 16:33:02 UTC