W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2012

Re: ISSUE-187 - some thoughts on using javascript

From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 23:52:43 +0100
Message-ID: <509C37BB.2050309@xs4all.nl>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
On 11/8/12 9:17 PM, Vinay Goel wrote:
> Hi Walter,
> I agree with you that the logical solution would be to store them together
> in the UA preferences.  From what I understand, though, the major UAs
> would likely not implement this, though.

I probably should have spotted that in the list archives before, but
have missed it. I cannot speek for the UAs, nonetheless all research on
user opinions on tracking suggests that they are much more inclined to
go for a all-out DNT:1 than for DNT:0, which makes me assume that any
exception mechanism is unlikely to be used often. Sadly not all research
in this field is publicly available, so we have to make do with what is.

>  So, servers are keen on
> Adrian's/Ian's latest proposal which removes the dependence on Uas.  I'm
> operating under the assumption that in order to have UGEs work in
> practice, we have to remove reliance on the UAs.  Is my assumption not
> shared amongst others?

Again, cannot speak for the UAs and do understand the conundrum here. I
can only reiterate my wish for whatever solution chosen by this group to
be machine-recognisable. I must also stress that I am rather indifferent
to the question whether we should have an exception mechanism to begin
with or not. I just happened to notice some potential issues with the
proposed mechanism as I understood it.

> Also, how can a server detect loss of a previously granted exception?  If
> a server can detect the loss of a previously granted exception, in your
> cookie-based approach can the server re-write the exception?

If an exception has been granted, I don't see why a server would not be
allowed to store the granted exception server-side in order to be able
to compare it with the UA stored version at a later stage. Rewriting the
exception would again require the user's consent, since its earlier
removal is very likely to be caused by withdrawal of earlier given consent.


Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 22:53:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:13 UTC