W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:53:45 -0600
To: <ifette@google.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBFE75CF.32E9%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Oh… good point.

Lots of people in the chain waiting to know whether or not it was the users

Question – if Abine's plugin sets DNT but doesn't change the browser UA how
do we know if the browser is non compliant?

Peter J. Cranstone

From:  "Ian Fette   (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com>
Reply-To:  <ifette@google.com>
Date:  Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:50 PM
To:  Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Cc:  Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, "Roy T. Fielding"
<fielding@gbiv.com>, 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 22:50:57 +0000

> You say "you can trigger an exception" but that's a HECK of a lot harder for a
> third party to do.
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:44 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 22:54:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:48 UTC