- 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>
John, 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 tools We can't anticipate and set the content of all communications, we have to set the conduits of those communications. Rigo 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