- From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:07:09 -0600
- To: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- CC: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Seriously? You're kidding right? DNT only requires you read the incoming header to see if it's present. Now I have to do the browser UA sniff test and then reject someone because even though the DNT flag is correct you don't like that the OEM enabled it by default. I can imagine Adobe adopting that on their Web site - Not. Peter ___________________________________ Peter J. Cranstone 720.663.1752 On 6/13/12 4:00 PM, "Kevin Smith" <kevsmith@adobe.com> wrote: >Rigo, > >It is the very fact that the server cannot know whether the setting was >enabled by the user or the browser which makes the browser non-compliant. >As such, the server communicates its inability to respond appropriately to >the header back to the user to let them know that if they did initiate the >intent, it will not be acknowledged unless they use a supported compliant >browser to convey the intent. > >-kevin > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] >Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:56 AM >To: public-tracking@w3.org >Cc: Shane Wiley; Peter Cranstone; Justin Brookman >Subject: Re: ACTION-211 Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent >to >turn on a DNT signal > >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 22:07:48 UTC