- From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:48:31 -0400
- To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>
- CC: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Hi Brooks, On 6/14/2012 10:39 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: >> trouble is that IE 10 is not non-compliant for all possible cases. >> > There are tools that are non-compliant for all possible cases. > I am not sure I agree with that statement. If IE10's compliance job is to > communicate user preference in a manner that is discernable to a server, > when does it achieve this end? As has been pointed out, IE makes it > impossible to discern between a DNT:1 that is or is not an expressed user > preference. We have yet to see MSIE's implementation, so I do not understand how you can categorically state this. In the implementation below, MSIE is perfectly capable of clearly communicating user expression as defined by the spec: MSIE: DNT-1 (set by default) Server: Neg ACK (I have taken a look at MSIE's implementation of the standard and I do not deem this DNT-1 to be a valid expression of user choice). MSIE: prompts the user (through an in-browser dashboard it has developed): this server has failed to acknowledge your DNT-1. Please select one of the following a.) I don't want to be tracked by this server; b.) I do want to be tracked by this server; c.) I'm generally ok with being tracked, please stop bothering me. User: I pick 'a.) I don't want to be tracked by this server' MSIE: DNT-1 (again) Server: ???? The server is basing its rejection of the first DNT-1 on its own research and the assessment that it did not result from 'user choice'. I don't think it can do so for the second DNT-1. Indeed, this second DNT-1 is fully compliant as far as I can tell.
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 13:49:38 UTC