RE: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions

Walter,

As long as you're comfortable with Servers reserving the right to not recognize DNT signals from browsers that don't support UGE, this could be acceptable.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 12:18 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions

On 06/12/2013 18:07, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> Walter,
> 
> JS support is open source (Web-kit) so it's not as if they need to 
> build it from scratch.  Alternatively, a blind user can leverage 
> Safari or IE which have excellent text reader support (FF may as well 
> but I only remember Victor, a blind member of our accessibility team, 
> mentioning those two).
> 
> That said, you're bringing up exactly the use cases that overly burden 
> version 1 of DNT.  If we narrow support to only web browsers to start 
> we remove the network router issue.  If we narrow to only JS browsers, 
> we remove situations where user preference is unbalanced.
> As we learn more in v1 we'll have the experience to guide how best to 
> address these edge cases.

I am sorry Shane. Integrating web-kit into a text-only browser is still a non-trivial undertaking. Especially with a small developer base.

Also, you have nowhere answered my questions a-d, stating that those are cases where user preference is 'unbalanced' (whatever that may mean) is not answering those questions.

Regarding burdening DNT: having a MUST support UGE requirement in it is overburdening it. The easiest way not to overburden the TPE is by remaining silent on the subject.

Regards,

 Walter

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 17:21:39 UTC