Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

On May 30, 2012, at 17:16 , Shane Wiley wrote:

> IF we agree with that argument on the setting of DNT, then we should adopt that same stance on out-of-band user granted exceptions.

If you mean that a site can get DNT:1 and respond "I claim I have an out-of-band exception and I therefore ignore your DNT request", then yes, that's true. Whether the UA and user AGREE that the site has their consent is another question - that they will have to resolve out of band as well.

> 
> - Shane
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:10 PM
> To: ifette@google.com
> Cc: Lauren Gelman; Shane Wiley; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]
> 
> 
> On May 30, 2012, at 16:05 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> 
>> I think the desire though is that DNT is a representation of a user's explicit preference. If a browser set it by default, for instance, would a site be obligated to respect it?
> 
> In short, yes.  The protocol signal means what it means.
> 
> Trying to guess 'did the user REALLY mean it' is not something we need to talk about in the spec.  If the user was misled, confused, etc., that's not our problem.
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 00:23:05 UTC