Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

On Saturday 02 June 2012 19:45:39 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I believe 143 is about additional requirements on user awareness
> of the new setting when DNT is enabled by an add-on/extension.

A friction is created by the fact that the server constituency tries to 
influence a decision making on the user side with requirements (must be a 
user decision etc), while the target is a benefit on the server side (avoid 
100% DNT;1 traffic). 

But the point is precisely that the server-side wants to make a decision and 
feels unable to. Enabling the server side to make that decision removes the 
friction. And because Roy has massacred the header part of the Specification 
(and the initial idea), it doesn't work anymore and creates the friction we 
don't know how to solve. Change the assumptions and it works like charm. 
Sending a DNT-header without receiving an ACK is meaningless and always will 
be. If we force a meaning to the header only, we'll get funny collateral 
effects. The protocol has to follow the social/legal imperatives here and 
not the other way around, especially because we are about to design a social 
protocol. The social protocol requires an ACK to bind both parties. One can 
destroy any legal system or rule system if it accepts silence as an 
affirmative statement. Not requiring an ACK is exactly that.


Received on Sunday, 3 June 2012 14:38:38 UTC