Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

On Monday 11 June 2012 15:14:34 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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.

If you chose to not honor a valid DNT request, that's an issue that 
goes beyond what W3C can define as sanctions. But telling that you 
discriminate one user agent even though it has sent a valid DNT 
header even according to the criteria that are consensus in the WG 
means you're putting yourself outside of DNT. Discriminating against 
a user agent only because of the user agent, whatever the user does 
with that agent is a bold move. A move against the "one web 
principle" and a move against a standards driven Web for all. 

Remember this one? 
http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2003/02/14/

You're not much better here. 

I'm not neglecting the issue and its impact on revenue, but I'm 
seriously questioning whether an ill advised user agent 
discrimination is a solution or the root for even deeper troubles. 

Rigo

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 22:18:58 UTC