- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:35:55 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, ifette@google.com, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
A decent feedback mechanism is perhaps part of a solution. It is not without reason that already the Romans required two expressions of will for the creation of inter-party consequences/obligations. Because there may always be situation where you do not want to contract or apply. The feedback (ack-) mechanism will help us with this. Because you can reject DNT. Without it, you can't and you might get your ticket to very nasty problems. Rigo On Wednesday 30 May 2012 17:09:47 David Singer wrote: > On May 30, 2012, at 16:05 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: > > I think the desire though is that DNT is a representation of a user's > > explicit preference. If a browser set it by default, for instance, > > would a site be obligated to respect it? > In short, yes. The protocol signal means what it means. > > Trying to guess 'did the user REALLY mean it' is not something we need to > talk about in the spec. If the user was misled, confused, etc., that's > not our problem. > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Sunday, 3 June 2012 14:09:27 UTC