- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:45:56 -0700
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Jun 4, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > Roy, > > the text in Aleecia's email and the following thread does not automatically > exclude the setting of a default. Aleecia's text says "If the user has not expressed a privacy preference, neither the user agent nor any service may send a DNT header on the user’s behalf. For example, neither a browser nor an ISP may inject “DNT: 1” on behalf of all of their users who have not selected a choice corresponding to “DNT: 0”. However, a user may make a choice for privacy that then implicitly includes a DNT setting." ISSUE-4 was decided by this WG. I fail to see how we could interpret it any other way. > 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 is nothing coincidental about it. When Microsoft made its announcement, I asked people within MS how they could possibly get that wrong. The only technical answer I got was that the existing requirement on determining a user preference was confusing because it appears in the same paragraph as the discussion of intermediaries. That's my fault, due to the series of edits that occurred after ISSUE-4 was decided, and is easily fixed by restoring the intent of our decision. > 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. It is not open to discussion. The only option on the table is wording consistent with the WG decision on ISSUE-4. If you have editorial suggestions to make in line with the decision on ISSUE-4, then I am happy to see them posted to this list. If you want to reopen the issue, you know how that is done. Meanwhile, the purpose of having an editor (and not a slave) is to propose wording so that it is available in time for our next meeting, wherein I assume it will be verified (or fixed) by the WG to be consistent with the decisions made by the WG up to that date. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 21:46:22 UTC