- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:38:19 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
On Tuesday 05 June 2012 12:45:25 Justin Brookman wrote: > For purposes of argument, substitute NACK with a different > response header for "Invalid User Agent" or "Non-Compliant User > Agent"that Shane suggested. IMHO, if a server can decline (NACK) for any reason, why would they speculate on whether a User Agent is invalid (whatever that means and who is determining whether it is a valid judgment). Because of stupid web developers, I'm regularly forced to fake my user agent string. I know I'm a browser-weirdo, but the browsers I'm using usually work. Now imagine, a site forces a certain string to be used (works only with IE 10) and then says: gotcha -> invalid user agent! This is only one of many frictions and collateral damages that we create by implicitly trespassing a user preference into non- refutable service(server) obligation and by trying to solve the undesirable effect by transgressing server-side concerns back into user agent configurations. Instead, we should go back to the roots of the meaning this all started with: user -> DNT;1? -><- DNT;1 <- Service If one side is missing or NACK, the protocol is validly executed but yielded no conclusive result. user -> DNT;1? -><- DNT;NACK <- Service just says No. Or it would force the service to contract under the user's conditions. That would be a strange result. All IMHO and as a pure contribution to the discussion. Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 17:38:49 UTC