- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:55:56 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
On Wednesday 13 June 2012 07:58:02 Shane Wiley wrote: > The Server doesn't need to know - I believe that's the point > you're missing. The user installed a non-compliant UA and the > Server will respond as such. The user then has multiple options > to exercise their choice but continued use of that specific UA to > communicate DNT is NOT one of them. Shane, the user can't communicate back to the server that she has now looked into the preferences, made a real choice, but wants to continue to use IE10. This is the big bug in the suggestion for the discrimination of a user agent currently suggested by you, Ian and Roy. IE10 is not uncompliant in every situation. And the current suggestion can't change back to "I accept" as the user has no means to communicate back "I really really mean it". You just will reject all DNT traffic from IE10. This means you discriminate against valid traffic without any possibility to rectify. And this is really something where I start to have some doubts. Browser sniffing is evil. Again: Browser sniffing is evil. Why don't we then start saying, we do not like traffic from AVG. We believe it is not compliant etc.. Where does that discrimination end? And again, the user can't revert that as it is hard coded into your servers. There must be another way. Lets brainstorm about it. But browser sniffing is evil! The solution to ignore a signal based on some (possibly spoofed) vendor string in the HTTP chatter is definitely going the wrong way. Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 16:56:25 UTC