Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults


I think your message addresses my concern. One of the improvements 
in wording would be to mention Rob's suggestion that the user may be 
given a choice during installation or first startup. This was re-
iterated by others as a good way to reflect user choice. 

It matches what you expressed as consensus below. 



On Sunday 17 June 2012 19:45:25 Matthias Schunter wrote:
> Hi Rigo,
> after being underwater while changing jobs, I finally read the
> current spec.
> I have finally read the spec and I believe that
>  a) Our agreement (ISSUE-4) is correctly reflected in the spec
> albeit the current language could benefit
>       from further editorial improvements to enhance clarity.
>  b) That the well-known URI / response headers need discussion and
> improvements and that this discussion is not yet over.
>      Roy had the mission to merge response headers into his
> proposal (what he did) and the result needs more polishing.
> Since I believe that we all agree that a default can be an
> expression of preference (e.g., if I install a privacy-enhanced
> browser that is permitted to ship with DNT;1 as default), feel
> free to indicate text updates to clarify the text to fully
> communicate this agreement. We also agreed that installing
> general-purpose tools (browser, OS, antivirus, ...) is not such 
> a declaration of prefefence and thus those tools must not ship
> with DNT on (e.g., DNT;1). However, they may enable DNT by asking
> their user during installation.

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 00:12:48 UTC