- From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 19:05:12 -0700
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Jun 6, 2012, at 3:00 PM, David Singer wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2012, at 11:48 , Aleecia M. McDonald wrote: > >> We did NOT hear a view that the specification should require publishers to honor DNT:1 signals from non-compliant User Agents. > > I think that I have consistently argued that when the two ends adhere to the protocol (i.e. their expression and responses are correct), then it's non-compliant to do other than the protocol requires, both in email and on the call. > > You might have good reason. But it's still not compliant. I sent you "Please do X", and you replied "No, I won't, I don't believe you." I don't think you can describe that as *compliant*. You might think it *justified*. > > Note well that this goes as much for servers claiming compliance and expecting to be treated as compliant, when in fact they implement something else (e.g. "do not target"). What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as they say, and if we write anything about one, we should write about both. To follow up on this, which is all a good capture of discussion, there was talk of publishers noting in a privacy policy "we comply with the W3C DNT specification except we ignore non-compliant user agents." We did not talk that all through. There is a lot more to talk about here, actually. We did make a good start getting into it; more to go. Aleecia
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 02:05:41 UTC