- From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:49:33 -0600
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
- CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
There is a simple solution. Server sees UA from MSIE 10 and sees that DNT:1 is set Sends a nice "marketing approved" message to the consumer and asks "is this your intent?" User says yes, server sets a cookie Problem solved Peter ___________________________________ Peter J. Cranstone 720.663.1752 On 6/13/12 4:44 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote: >On Wednesday 13 June 2012 15:25:32 Kevin Smith wrote: >> Our currently defined protocol does provide a way to indicate who >> set the value - the presence of a DNT:1 was intended to >> communicate the user's intent. If DNT:1 is set by default, there >> is no way to communicate to the server the user's >> intent. Therefore, it is impossible for that a UA which sends >> DNT:1 by default to send a valid DNT request since they cannot in >> any way express the user's intent. > >You're digging into (silly) trenches instead of looking for a >solution. We are repeating the same dialog for the n-th time: > >"The WG has decided the UA must represent a user's preference. A >default is not a preference. Let's ignore that user agent" > >versus > >"The protocol does not tell you whether a signal was sent as a >result of a user preference, but you can trigger an exception or not >respond at all. Because there will be any number of user agents and >options. In case you refuse the header, you can't claim compliance" > >Can we go beyond that and start brainstorming again? I'm conscious >about the potential loss of revenue. There must be a more >intelligent way out than just claim "bad user agent". > >Rigo > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 22:50:17 UTC