Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance] from Rigo Wenning on 2012-06-03 (public-tracking@w3.org from June 2012)

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 16:11:12 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <37188910.xnuJxLM719@hegel.sophia.w3.org>

Kevin, 

at another place we are discussing the feedback (response mechanism). Here 
you can see immediately how useful this is. A user agent can not IMHO expect 
compliance just by sending a DNT header. Having only some WKL that ACK 
everything by default is your enemy here. 

You know that you want to comply if you have sent back the ack-header. Until 
then, no, I don't see how you would have made that promise. 

Rigo

On Friday 01 June 2012 13:53:16 Kevin Smith wrote:
> A better question would be, does a compliant entity have to respect a
> signal sent from a non-compliant entity.  If IE, or any other user agent
> defines DNT to mean something different than the spec and you choose to
> ignore it, are you non-compliant to the spec, or non-compliant to that
> user agent’s setting.

Received on Sunday, 3 June 2012 14:10:31 UTC