- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:14:34 -0700
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Jun 11, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > Roy, > > On Saturday 09 June 2012 16:06:35 Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>> Exactly what information arrives >>> so the Web server understands itıs broken? >> >> Somebody tests the browser and says it is broken. > > This is stupid browser sniffing. And it doesn't buy you a thing. It doesn't need to buy anything. > Because if I have altered my preferences, even IE sends compliant > signals as they represent my choice. This means you just have > ignored a valid DNT:1 request because you second-guessed the wrong > thing. No, it means I have ignored a header field because it came in with another header field that matches a non-compliant UA. Since I have stated that I will not honor DNT when set by that UA, I have done exactly what I said I would do. If you have chosen to spoof the User-Agent header field for some other UA, then I take that as an instruction that you want all of the same behavior that I would have delivered for that UA, including ignoring the DNT signal. > Sane protocol design looks different IMHO Sane protocol design doesn't start with an indication of user preference that did not involve the user indicating a preference. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 22:14:58 UTC