On Feb 10, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote: > Some (myself included) object to a general signal for noncompliance. The shared concern is that websites will claim they "implement Do Not Track" (i.e. the TPE protocol) when they do not implement the TCS compliance policy. > > There seemed to be greater comfort with a noncompliance signal scoped solely to temporary testing. I would still be uneasy. > > Jonathan Please direct your comments to the specific proposal that appears in the editors' draft: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#tracking-status-value I believe that both the first paragraph of 5.2 and the definition provided for the ! status are quite clear and cannot be confused with implementing the tracking protection protocol. If you don't think so, please provide alternate wording. I am less sure about confusion regarding implementing Do Not Track, since we haven't defined that, but I seriously doubt that there is any incentive whatsoever for sites to say that they implement DNT when they don't actually do so. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 10:15:52 UTC