- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:28:01 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
David, thanks for this effort. I maintain, as I said to you in Amsterdam, that the fact that the DNT technical protocol starts with the expression of a user preference makes it inoperative for variable compliance expressions that you suggest. If we want to express compliance, we have to go back to a P3P like regime where the service states its compliance after the first HTTP-GET request. Because if the user sends you DNT:1 he tells you: "I want DNT-W3C" and he gets the answer "I'm doing DNT-DOOM". This is a negotiation. And we haven't provided for any negotiation in the technical specification. Or are you saying somebody coming in wanting "DNT- W3C" can just be overruled so it means "I want DNT-DOOM" and fulfills the request under those conditions? In what way would that still respect a "user" preference? In this case we can just skip the entire circus and say: "I do DNT-DOOM". A kind of P3P for the poor. I know it would have been sooo simple and cool. But it simply doesn't work. The semantics are at odds with the suggested solution. Rigo P.S. Note that I had to say DNT-DOOM as a rational approach would assume that the user accepts a DNT-EU or DNT-Truste that would be better than the compliance spec, which is just a way out of the negotiation referred to above. On Tuesday 09 October 2012 09:22:15 David Wainberg wrote: > ACTION-246 > (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/246), > which relates to ISSUE-45 > (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/45). > > Hello all, > > This is a clarification of my previous proposal > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0012. > html). I'm launching it on a fresh thread, because the previous > one got a bit wild and off-topic. >
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 17:28:24 UTC