- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 02:12:20 +0200
- To: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Cc: "publ >> \"public-tracking@w3.org\"" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Matthias, 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. Best, Rigo 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