- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:51:46 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Wednesday 07 March 2012 11:39:55 Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > The smart thing about the DNT-header approach is that a resource is > > requested with a DNT header and the response concerns exactly that > > resource. This is scoping the semantics nicely and naturally without > > having to describe everything in advance. > > If that were true, the header field would have no value because > it only defines what is claimed to have happened in the past. And you can consent to things that happened in the past. Additionally, it is not correct to assert that something happened in the past. The user sends a DNT header to the service and the services sends a response header back with the content. This way the user knows whether the service has accepted his DNT preference. I know that you will say the user can not expect this. And yes, this is the disadvantage of having the protocol started by the user instead of having it started by the service like in P3P. There you know what the service will do and can take it or leave it. DNT is the other way around. The user declares something and the service may take it or leave it. If you scope that declaration in a very general way, you will hit the wall of the granularity needed by internet services. The risk is that you get a general DNT=1 for everything IMHO instead of getting a DNT=1 for the things the users don't want. IMHO, the missing granularity is to the detriment of competition between the services and also to the detriment of the third parties who will be in an all or nothing position together will all other third parties. If one evil guy is there, everything gets blocked. I don't see this as a future proof solution. See, in WAP, the industry tried to force people to always start with the portal page. What a royal failure. This was not accepted. We can fail here too, not to the detriment of the users, but to the detriment of the industry IMHO. Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 20:56:42 UTC