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

> On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>> 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'.
> The server would say that the non-compliant browser is broken
> and thus incapable of transmitting a true signal of the user's
> preferences.  Hence, it will ignore DNT from that browser,
> though it may provide other means to control its own tracking.
> The user's actions are irrelevant until they choose a browser
> capable of communicating correctly or make use of some means
> other than DNT.

You (and others here) have become very, very confused about what
the words 'choice' and 'choose' mean, and what actions can/should
'represent' that 'moment of choice'.

If I CHOOSE to download/install a piece of software (ANY piece of software)
for the sole reason that its 'defaults' are the 'ones I like/want'
then that, itself, represents this 'moment of choice' that you
seem to be so concerned about.

How do you KNOW that I have already 'made my choice' in this manner,
or that I have written my own Browser module that adds DNT by 'default'
without input screens, or that I have manually installed a pass-thru Proxy
that doesn't touch UA for ALL of my Users ( with their full consent ) to
take care of adding a 'DNT=1' header automatically for ALL Browsers in-use
on my in-house or small-business network?...

....and that ANY of the actions above represent 'a choice' and I should
be able to participate fully in a public DNT scheme?

You don't (know).

If my software ( which I have CHOSEN to install ) sends you DNT=1
you (sic:Server) MUST assume all of the 'choosing' (sic:Client)
has already taken place.

Period. End of story.

There is no other 'sane' alternative in 'the real world'.

> I have now repeated that same statement, in various ways,
> over half a dozen times.  It would be nice if we could stop
> wasting the group's time over a question that is not subject
> to working group consensus.  In order for the protocol to be
> deployable, we agreed on standard semantics for the DNT header
> field that includes the need for user choice.  If you don't
> like that, you'll have to first appeal to reopen ISSUE-4
> and then convince the WG that its decision was wrong.

See above. There's that word again ( choice ).

I think someone SHOULD appeal/re-open ISSUE-4.

I think that someone should be YOU.

> Deployment of a recommendation is voluntary, and it is absolutely
> reasonable for one condition of server deployment to be that
> the user agent does not make false statements in the protocol.
> I think the question of how a rejection might be communicated
> to the user is within scope, but should be discussed on a
> new thread.

A User-Agent is never 'on the witness stand'.

It cannot 'make a false statement' if the User is already aware
of its defaults and what it is doing... and the User (already) AGREES
with those 'choices'.

> What I said on last week's call is that Apache does not tolerate
> anarchy in HTTP.  Apache would defend the standard, as agreed
> to by the WG, because defending open standards for HTTP is
> part of the Apache HTTP server project's mission.
> I pointed that out during the call because some people think
> the WG's decisions are irrelevant and that Microsoft can do
> whatever it wants and not suffer any consequences.
> I know better, even though I am not representing Apache
> in this forum.

I think the 'push-back' you are seeing on this particular protocol
point is that others ( myself included ) think it CREATES the very
'anarchy' you seem to be loathe to 'tolerate'.

It is a 'threat'... and it is based on things that you are not
capable of (accurately) knowing unless you really expand this
currently planned extension to HTTP.

> Apache committers might quibble over the details, depending
> on who implements DNT in the core, but I have no doubt that a
> default DNT signal would not be honored by Apache httpd if
> the configuration says that a given UA's implementation
> is invalid. I'd veto that implementation if it did.

So Apache IS planning on 'implementing DNT in the core (server)'?

What is the timeframe on that?

> Since Jonathan seems to have confused it multiple times,
> I did not say that Adobe would implement DNT, one way or the
> other, with or without making an exception for invalid UAs.
> I don't know the answer to that yet, nor do I expect to have
> an answer until the Compliance document represents at least
> an approximation of consensus (as opposed to a list of
> contradictory wishes), nor do I expect the answer to be
> entirely consistent across the many distinct products,
> services, and software tools created at Adobe.  However,
> in general, the reason Adobe participates in standards
> efforts like this one is because we believe in open standards
> and wish to implement them as specified.

You and your employer (Adobe) can/should be 'commended' for your participation.

The world of web users is sick and tired of 'being tracked'.


Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 08:24:49 UTC