- From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:36:08 -0700
- To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
- Cc: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAF4kx8fUvKYX4Q_cAPxu-k==WM_O5XcYvo1sXq3Cg+rnTX9ZTg@mail.gmail.com>
The point is that with IE your decision is masked by MSFT's default. If you turn it off, I know that you've made a decision, but if you turn it back on again I have no way of knowing if you're a user that made a decision or not. With FF it is __NOT__ proposed to be "off" by default. It is proposed to be unset by default. You turn it on I know you made an explicit decision. You set it to off and I know you made an explicit decision. -Ian On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 >> >> >> 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 14:36:36 UTC