Re: ACTION-390: alternative UA affordances for DNT choice

Rigo - Can you help me understand why the text in the document that has
been there since Oct is fine, but the text I offered is not? My text
simply builds on the text from the Oct draft.

Were you objecting to section 5 all along and I missed it? I'm just not
understanding where your analysis is coming from here. I was under the
impression that the User Agent being responsible "for determining the user
experience by which a tracking preference is controlled" has been long
settled. The draft text for the last six months bears that out. My
apologies if this has been previously debated, but I was unable to find it
in the email archive. I'd be grateful for any clarity you could provide.

That said - I'll start working on some additional language over the next
few days.


On 4/26/13 2:34 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <> wrote:

>On Friday 26 April 2013 13:51:48 Alan Chapell wrote:
>> >Yes, the tricky part is to find the right wording to cover those we
>> >want to be responsible. "user agent" is "the wrong tree" as Roy
>> >would say. We should formulate our expectation on the user's
>> >experience (this is in the center of our interest) and leave the
>> >determination of the responsible person to the legal system.
>> I strongly disagree with that approach.
>I do NOT believe you can define all possible variants of legal entities
>selling/distributing software to end users in a technical specification.
>But you can try. Awaiting your text. "user agent" isn't giving you any
>result that would serve accountability. We are now 3 people telling you.
> --Rigo

Received on Sunday, 28 April 2013 16:15:27 UTC