- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:11:51 -0700
- To: "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org protection wg" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Grimmelmann, James wrote: > [I previously sent this from the wrong email address. My apologies.] > > This is not an issue on which the Working Group should have a position. Apache in the abstract is neither compliant nor noncompliant with the standard. What matters is only what servers receiving and responding to DNT requests actually _do_. > > Server software is not an "intermediary." It is under the control of the server operator, who takes responsibility for its actions. > > That said, this change is harmful to the adoption process for Do Not Track, because it: > (1) Treats the text of the TPE spec as unambiguous on an issue where it is highly ambiguous; If you think the text is ambiguous, please supply unambiguous text that is consistent with the WG decision. Having ambiguous text is a problem we are supposed to solve. I don't see any ambiguity there, so don't expect a proposal from me. > (2) Creates an obstacle to DNT adoption on the part of servers; and How? AFAICT, it is the only thing making it possible to deploy DNT for Firefox and Safari (and other UAs that implement DNT correctly). > (3) May cause serious regulatory trouble for server operators who do not realize their installation of Apache deliberately ignores IE 10. The only regulations I know of in this space are regional, which continue to apply after the signal is dropped. In any case, the current compliance specification already makes all HTTP servers non-compliant with DNT, so that is not something a server operator can solve without further work by the server developers or fixes in compliance. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 18:12:14 UTC