- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:02:41 -0700
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Sep 17, 2012, at 9:43 , Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Sep 17, 2012, at 9:18 AM, David Singer wrote: >> On Sep 16, 2012, at 16:23 , Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net> wrote: >> >>> Actually, now that the Co-Chair has decided against the need for a DNT: 0 option by browsers, this option is meaningless. we should stop acting like any W3C standard will truly offer users multiple useful options. What an unfortunate development. >>> >> >> I think you misunderstand the details of this technical decision. It was not about need, but about a mandate. > > And it was a decision by the chairs, not one co-chair, based on the > objections noted. We should be doing more of this, faster ... one > week to prepare CPs and one week to vote is enough time, and a > quick terse response is better than a well-reasoned treatise, since > I have yet to encounter a situation where the audience's disparate > views were mollified by the decision text. Yes, but I think it might be like code comments -- it's as much for us in a year's time as for anyone else. > > Nevertheless, the fact remains that user agents don't implement a > global DNT:0 setting (with or without a mandate), which means sites > that need a consent mechanism will have to interrupt the user or > plaster the walls with consent banners. That's unfortunate. sure, if it becomes clear to UA makers that their users are getting annoyed and the situation could be ameliorated by a global dnt:0 setting, they can introduce it. > > We still need a definition of DNT:0 for the exception mechanism, yup. 'indicates an explicit indication by the user that they have not asked not to be tracked' is the tightest literal meaning, but I hate sentences with that number of negatives. can anyone do better? > at least until that gets removed for lack of browser support. unlikely. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 19:03:12 UTC