W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2013

Re: ISSUE-161: Discussion of semantics and alternatives to "!"

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:06:14 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
Message-ID: <1581832.K5xGYW6VNt@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
On Tuesday 16 April 2013 11:43:11 David Singer wrote:
> I certainly agree that second-guessing DNT signals is … at best,
> questionable.  However, IF it is going to happen, I am strongly
> supportive of transparency back to the user, which this flag
> supplies.  I wish it were not needed.

+1

I urged us to have a "D" and/or "!" signal. Everything else is a 
roadblock for deployment as nobody will sign a blank check to adhere for 
all and every possible uses of DNT:1 on the site. 

Silent non-conformance is the same, but harder to detect. You would just 
not send any signal back if you don't want to adhere. What remains is 
the concern that you could claim DNT conformance while sending only "D"s 
back. I think this is not of concern as such behavior would go directly 
to /.

I do NOT believe in the "I do DNT" replacing the privacy policy entirely 
without any granularity and for all and every request. I rather believe 
in granular policies (DNT:0/DNT:1, TSV etc) on a per request basis. 

Because otherwise, we wouldn't need a signal, but just a site saying "we 
do DNT:1" for all. No need for a complex protocol. 

 --Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 13:06:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:29 UTC