Re: Modifying a DNT Header (ISSUE-153, ACTION-285)

On 11/10/12 5:12 AM, Walter van Holst wrote:
> Yes, and I feel that this would require an UA to check whether its 
> stored DNT preferences have been changed, just like UAs tend to check 
> whether they are the default UA. This does not require an UA to 
> guaranteee the DNT preferences have not been changed since one could 
> think of several ways of circumventing that. And to probably clarify 
> it further, since it is impossible to check for sure that the 
> preference transmitted over HTTP is the same as the one stored in the 
> UA, I think this should not require an UA to even try to check that.
> The reason I proposed this is that I think it is not unreasonable to 
> require some diligence as to to ascertain that the DNT preference 
> reflects the actual intents of the user. My worries are more about 
> DNT:0, yours happen to be about DNT:1, but we both feel that the 
> 'informed' bit of the expressed consent/lack of consent should be 
> taken seriously.
> Where we may have disagreement on is on the question at which point 
> due diligence becomes undue diligence. The text as proposed (and 
> perhaps after some refinement given the different way you may have 
> read it) puts in an, in my opinion, acceptable and feasible level of 
> that. I would welcome feedback from UA makers on this, they are likely 
> to have a more informed opinion on this than I have. 
I'm not sure we have disagreement. We're looking for the same thing: not 
guarantees, but a feasible level of diligence to ensure the signal 
reflects the actual intent of the user.

Received on Saturday, 10 November 2012 15:38:47 UTC