Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults


the text in Aleecia's email and the following thread does not automatically 
exclude the setting of a default. But your wording does so in a funny 
coincidence to the excitement about a UA setting a default or sounds at 
least ambiguous about it. That doesn't mean I'm a fan of setting a default 
to DNT;1 as it cuts both ways. A browser could ship with default DNT;0 Nor 
am I a fan of this or that position. I just think that writing this into the 
Specification is premature and will hinder a good discussion. 

There are more options on the table than just saying "a default is not an 
expression of will". IMHO as a WG participant, the ice this assertion is 
coming on is much too thin to carry a solution capable of providing a remedy 
to the conflicts we experience. I do not exclude that "a default is not an 
expression of will" will prevail, but writing it as _the_ solution into the 
specification is again setting a default for the Group but accordingly to 
its very paradigm can not be seen as an expression of will of that Group. 
But it looks a bit that way. And this is why I would like a real discussion 
before having things patched in a hasty way.


On Monday 04 June 2012 09:01:25 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Please be specific.
> ....Roy
> On Jun 4, 2012, at 2:34 AM, Rigo Wenning <> wrote:
> > Your edits do NOT reflect the text in Aleecia's mail you claim to
> > implement. I object to those edits.
> > 
> > Rigo
> > 
> > On Monday 04 June 2012 01:37:07 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> On Jun 2, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >>> I have heard that at least some people seem to think the current
> >>> TPE spec is unclear about the no-header-by-default protocol
> >>> requirement, mostly because the same section focuses on
> >>> intermediaries. I intend to fix that as an editorial concern. 
> >>> Please feel free to send suggested text to the mailing list.
> >> 
> >> I have added text based on Aleecia's original proposal that was
> >> reviewed in Santa Clara (IIRC), slightly modified to reflect the
> >> three alternatives (unset, on, off) we agreed upon and to fit
> >> within the determining/expressing/multiple-mechanisms order of
> >> the current spec.
> >> 
> >>
> >> ml
> >> 
> >> ....Roy

Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 21:11:05 UTC