John, I think this could be part of the difficult notion of mandating "compliance" (and most recently, the even more puzzling proposal purporting to prohibit "partial compliance") for both sites and user agents with these specifications. The reality is that W3C specifications are adopted voluntarily and gradually over a period of time. I'd welcome feedback from others who have more W3C experience on this particular issue. Also, a related blog: http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/07/02/continuing-our-commitment-to-privacy-and-consumer-choice-with-do-not-track.aspx Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: John Simpson<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org> Sent: ý7/ý4/ý2013 3:15 PM To: Jack Hobaugh<mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>; Marc Groman<mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>; Mike Zaneis<mailto:mike@iab.net>; Shane Wiley<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org List<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> Subject: Definition of user agent? Colleagues, What is the significance of the addition of this sentence to the definition of user agent: This standard applies to user agents that (1) can access the general browsable Web; (2) have a user interface that satisfies the requirements in Determining User Preference in the [TRACKING-DNT] specification; (3) and can implement all of the [TRACKING-DNT] specification, including the mechanisms for communicating a tracking status, and the user-granted exception mechanism. Does this mean a user agent is not compliant if it doesn't implement the UGE mechanism? Regards, John
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 16:43:05 UTC