- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:52:17 +0200
- To: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
On Tuesday 05 June 2012 13:32:09 Tamir Israel wrote: > I'm not clear: are there obligations to communicate NACK responses > to the end user if DNT-1 is set by UA default? Sending a DNT header does not mean it gets accepted. So there is always some kind of response (via WKL or headers) and not only in case of DNT;1 setting as UA default. The kind of response is under debate. > > > So I say, with defaults or without, you can't force a service > > to honor DNT;1 until they've sent you an ACK! If we violate > > this basic principle, I will start to send contracts to all > > those in favor of the violation of that principle and request > > that they do what I have written down in the contract. > > > > Is getting a NACK on a DNT;1 the end of the world? No! The > > browser knows now that the service is not willing to apply > > DNT;1 rules and can react accordingly. I can show you in > > Seattle what that potentially can mean. I would e.g. hope > > that the browser-bundle would start TOR on demand for that > > situation. > > Is there something in the spec that would require this? I think > making the UA the enforcer might be problematic, as per P3P.... Of course not! A user agent _may_ offer help and trigger all kinds of protections. But it isn't obliged to do so. > > I appreciate the desire to avoid dictating server responses and > stick to explaining what is being 'expressed' by each signal. > Yes, legal regimes can impose 'fictional' DNT-1 defaults onto > servers, but I think that can be precluded if some UA/server > process is set up to manage 'disagreements'. The disagreement is managed by the exception mechanism we have. For the UA, there is no response to disagreements specified. If you want a minimum reaction of the UA, write your suggestion to the WG. Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 17:55:10 UTC