- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:25:30 -0700
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:11 , Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote: > But David, > > peu importe whether you come with no header or "unset". The granting > of the exception has to be communicated back. And you can only do > that by having the UA send DNT:0 that the server can log to satisfy > the DPA audit and his own CYA. > > So if Browsers now refuse to implement DNT:0, who ever said that? > the entire thing goes > down the drain. Without DNT:0, DNT is not a communication mechanism > anymore. But this is a strawman. Please, the question and decision were about a MANDATE of a GLOBAL preference, that's all. > All that remains is a privacy fart exhaling DNT:1 headers > and servers that comply regardless with some specification that cuts > the most obvious erroneous trends. > > Or am I misunderstanding? (I hope so) yes > > Rigo > > On Monday 17 September 2012 14:07:17 David Singer wrote: >> I think this is possible today, though it's the first I recall >> thinking about it. The site would detect a visit with no DNT >> header, and asks you for an exception (and then the usual >> exception processing goes on). >> >> I guess if a site wants to do this, it should work, and we should >> make sure nothing has been written that implies the >> converse. Unless there is a snag I ain't seeing. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 13:26:49 UTC