- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:58:28 -0700
- To: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Matthias, To me this discussion is dependent on the explicit/explicit decision. If explicit/explicit is allowed, then I believe a new signal will be necessary to send to a web site operator that they may have a mixed user granted exception state (some 1, some 0) as it has no other way of knowing and would have to poll on all transactions. Once we close on explicit/explicit, then I believe we'll know if we need a DNT:2 (mixed state, poll for details). - Shane -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Schunter [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 12:11 AM To: public-tracking@w3.org Subject: ISSUE-59: Should the first party be informed about the DNT values sent to third parties Hi DNT team, my suggestioin to resolve this issue (based on our revised user-granted exception approach) 1. If a first party receives DNT;1, it can assume that its third parties (in general) also receive DNT;1 2. If a first party receives DNT;0, it can assume that its third parties (in general) also receive DNT;0 3. If it needs more information, it can call the exceptioin API 3. If it needs _reliable_ information, this must to be retrieved from the third parties. Why "in general"? - In general, a site-wide exception for this first party should trigger sending DNT;0 while else DNT;1 is sent - The web-wide exceptions are implemented client side and user agents must be considered unreliable. - This simple signal cannot reflect the compexity of user preferences. The most simple example is that DNT;1 will be sent even if some third parties have a web-wide exception. Note that I believe that there is no need for more signaling (DNT;2, 3, ...). I hope you all agree (if not, please tell me so). Comments / Feedback? Regards, matthias
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2012 22:59:20 UTC