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

Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:46:26 -0400
Message-ID: <5012C5E2.7030401@cippic.ca>
To: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>
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>
Chris -- the ideal for me would not necessarily be to bind servers to 
respect non-valid signals, but rather to find a way to resolve signal 
conflicts.

It's not apparent to me that the IE10 case is so clear cut (or will 
remain so in light of the proposed mechanism here). If, for example, IE 
wanted to retain their stance in light of the approach Shane and David 
proposed, they could quite simply implement a mechanism that prompted 
users to confirm their DNT-1 if it's challenged by a server in this way. 
At that stage, you have a clearly expressed DNT-1 user preference, and 
if a server wishes to continue ignoring that, I would argue they are 
opening themselves up to liability. Even without this clarification, I 
think it's ambiguous at best for a server to ignore a DNT-1 from an IE10 
user after directly notifying the user their browser is sending this 
signal (James' point).

So, instead of letting servers unilaterally deem a signal non-compliant, 
or setting off an escalation of arms, why not simply build in a 
mechanism for confirming user intention through the UA.

But again, I'm happy to defer on this point until some other elements of 
the spec are resolved.

Best,
Tamir

On 7/27/2012 12:32 PM, Chris Pedigo wrote:
> 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 16:47:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:53 UTC