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


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