Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

"... users may be given a choice during installation, update or first 


On 20-6-2012 17:12, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> 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 00:32:54 UTC