Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

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