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

Re: ACTION-212: Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:01:02 +0100
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-ID: <4056777.qILuzoFgRM@bluebunny>

it looks like there is a consensus between Roy, Shane, Me and some others that 
if a server believes a signal is non-compliant and does not want to honor, it 
responds with an appropriate status (I suggested "T" with a definition)

The pressure to honor DNT:1 will not come from the Specification IMHO. Users 
are concerned and will use browsers that will react on a site not accepting 
their DNT request. From my research, I still have some sandbox where I can 
show you how far this can go. For the industry, not honoring carries two 
risks: 1/ regulator action (deliberately general wording) and 2/ blocking 

We can't anticipate and set the content of all communications, we have to set 
the conduits of those communications. 


On Tuesday 13 November 2012 14:39:42 John Simpson wrote:
> There was consensus around the idea that a compliant UA would represent the
> user's choice.  There is NOT consensus around what a compliant server may
> do if it receives a facially valid DNT:1 from a browser that the server
> believes to be noncompliant...
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2012 18:01:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:00 UTC