- From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:27:03 -0600
- To: <ifette@google.com>
- CC: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CBFDFED6.3128%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Nope. I install MSIE and it's on by default. So I turn it off. 2 days later I decide I want to turn it on again. I install FF and it's off by default. So I turn it on. 2 days later I decide I want to turn it off again. There's no functional difference between those two statements. The spec cannot determine "who" turned it on or off. Peter ___________________________________ Peter J. Cranstone 720.663.1752 From: "Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com> Reply-To: <ifette@google.com> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:24 AM To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com> Cc: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance > The difference is that with IE you can't tell, and with FF you can tell. > > As for being set by intermediary, we prohibited that in the spec as well, but > there's not a great way to tell this. Presumably you might see something like > "100% of users coming from this ASN are using DNT" if you cared to look, but > it is a much harder question. > > -Ian > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Nick, >> >> Question: How do you know if this is 'truly the preference of the user'? >> >> For example >> 1. I install Windows 8 and MSIE sends the DNT:1 header by default. >> 2. I install Firefox 12 or 13 and then turn on DNT:1 >> What's the difference that you can determine with server code? >> >> Second question: How do you know it's been set by a vendor or intermediary? >> * Proxy server adds DNT:1 to all outgoing HTTP requests. >> * Server sees DNT:1 on the incoming request there's been NO other change to >> the UA >> >> >> Peter >> ___________________________________ >> Peter J. Cranstone >> 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752> >> >> >> From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org> >> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:26 AM >> To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com> >> Cc: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, W3 Tracking >> <public-tracking@w3.org> >> >> Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance >> Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> >> Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:27:03 +0000 >> >>> On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: >>> >>>> I think the problem is that compliance is based on both sides ability to >>>> honor user preference. If one side forges user preference, and the other >>>> side can correctly only be compliant by acting on actual user preference, >>>> there is an untenable situation. Where a UA sends a well formed header >>>> absent having obtained a preference from the user, the recipient server >>>> will always be forced into non-compliance, no matter which action it takes. >>>> >>>> Two cases come to mind: >>>> 1. If a UA sends a DNT:1 by default, AND this is truly the preference of >>>> the user, if the server fails to respond accordingly to DNT:1 then >>>> arguably compliance has not been achieved. >>>> 2. If, conversely, a server honors a well formed DNT:1 set by a vendor or >>>> intermediary, absent such being the actual preference of the the user, >>>> again preference has not been honored and compliance not maintained. >>> For the second case: I'm not aware of anything in draft specifications that >>> would make a server non-compliant if it treated a user that hadn't expressed >>> a DNT:1 preference as if it had. For example, we don't have any requirements >>> that a user who arrives with DNT:0 must be tracked. You might confuse a user >>> if you provide a very different experience under DNT:1 and it was inserted >>> by an intermediary unbeknownst to the user, but I don't see any issues with >>> compliance with this group's specifications. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Nick >
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 14:27:44 UTC