Rigo: Users require substantive information on why a server believes there is non-complaince--not a mere "T." The W3C process needs to ensure that users have robust information on the real reasons why their request is being rejected--such as Yahoo, major advertiser members of ANA, and [fill in the blank] don't believe a browser should create a stronger default for DNT. We cannot leave it to the regulatory process. or blocking tools. The Spec should signify precisely why a UA is rejecting the user's request--especially when it is doing it for its own narrow economic purposes. This should be on our agenda when we speak next. Jeff Jeffrey Chester Center for Digital Democracy 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20009 www.democraticmedia.org www.digitalads.org 202-986-2220 On Nov 18, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > 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 18:12:54 UTC