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

Re: Multiple DNT Headers (ACTION-283, ISSUE-150)

From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:32:35 -0700
Message-Id: <0B433EF7-D2B1-4819-B0F6-0A7F351FD23B@consumerwatchdog.org>
Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>

On Oct 12, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2012-10-12, at 16:03 -0400, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> This subject has nothing to do with Internet Explorer. The question is what happens if a broken user agent sends multiple DNT headers, which violates the definition of the DNT header (which MUST only appear once). Options include a) assume DNT:1; b) assume DNT:0; c) ignore all the headers; d) if the multiple headers all have the same value use that value otherwise one of the previous options; etc.
>> Personally I don’t think we’ll be able to enumerate and describe all the ways that people might find to not follow the technical requirements of the standard and so in general I think the spec should be silent on this type of situation.
> +100
>> If we do indeed decide to write something down for this then I agree with Shane’s proposal: If a server receives conflicting DNT headers, it MAY choose to treat the transaction as if no DNT header had been received.  The Server MAY choose to alert the user about possible user agent configuration issues causing multiple, conflicting DNT header signals to be received.
> Sounds reasonable to me.

I am puzzled.  If there is a conflict why wouldn't you treat as if DNT:1 were enabled?  If you went with treating as if no DNT signal, then at the least I'd think the server MUST choose to alert the user about possible configuration issues.

Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 21:32:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:58 UTC