- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:10:39 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Roy, 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. Rigo 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 <rigo@w3.org> 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. > >> > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2012Jun/0 > >> 000.ht ml > >> > >> ....Roy
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 21:11:05 UTC