- From: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:09:08 -0700
- To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANZBoGj-QXT0CstN3WiYLu294Jcmr3v=Uq1JbcqPjrSrgQ5+Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Shane, Does "invalid UA" mean the same thing as "non-compliant UA"? Or do you mean "invalid" to be broader somehow? On Wednesday, June 13, 2012, Shane Wiley wrote: > Peter,**** > > ** ** > > That is up to the Server to make the choice to reply with an “Invalid UA” > response and provide users with options from that point forward. That > Server will need to defend its position to consumers, advocates, etc. but > should absolutely have that option. Whatever overhead that comes that > choice (PR defense, coding overhead, etc.) is the Servers to manage from > that point forward.**** > > ** ** > > - Shane**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Peter Cranstone [mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'peter.cranstone@gmail.com');>] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:04 AM > *To:* Shane Wiley; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'public-tracking@w3.org');> > *Subject:* Re: ACTION-211 Draft text on how user agents must obtain > consent to turn on a DNT signal**** > > ** ** > > Shane,**** > > ** ** > > The server does need to know because it's about to reject it. MSIE is non > compliant in only ONE aspect – it sets the flag by default. In EVERY other > aspect it is COMPLIANT because the user can change that preference.**** > > ** ** > > So in essence you're saying that if you see a UA of MSIE 10 you're going > to reject it immediately and send back a 400 message. Get ready to start > writing lots of scripts or modules (your preference) **** > > **** > > > Peter > ___________________________________ > Peter J. Cranstone > 720.663.1752**** > > ** ** > > *From: *Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:58 AM > *To: *Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>, Justin Brookman < > justin@cdt.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> > *Subject: *RE: ACTION-211 Draft text on how user agents must obtain > consent to turn on a DNT signal**** > > ** ** > > Peter,**** > > **** > > 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**** > > **** > > *From:* Peter Cranstone [mailto:peter.crans > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 17:09:37 UTC