- From: Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:35:46 +0000
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- CC: "fielding@gbiv.com" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "tisrael@cippic.ca" <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- Message-ID: <B400AD156CAF3E4680360A8988DCC97528280118@MBX022-E1-NJ-6.exch022.domain.local>
> 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. > >....Roy You and your employer (Adobe) can/should be 'commended' for your participation. The world of web users is sick and tired of 'being tracked'. .....Kevin
Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 08:24:49 UTC