- From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 17:52:53 +0000
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CE005893.14CA%peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com>
Your own standard precludes any way for the server to determine who set the header – it simply receives the signal value. As experienced as you are you, cannot write code to determine that IE10 violates those semantics – it's impossible. If you don't believe me – write the code and I'll test it for you. I have IE10 sitting right here with my finger on the DNT preference setting. Shouldn't take more than a single click to determine the answer. In every browser I've looked at there is the ability for the user to set the DNT signal – even in IE10. I can set it, unset it, reset it and you cannot tell who did that. Unless you ask for a UGE. If you ignore IE10 browser signals then it is you who is promoting the incorrect implementation of open web standards. Peter _________________________ Peter J. Cranstone By testing the behavior of the client. For example, it takes about five minutes to determine that IE10 violates those semantics. IE11 could fix that easily. David, I am not interested in the philosophical discussion about whether a user might have set the option. Any client that sends a preference when no such preference has been set will be ignored, just like we ignore other fields that have been incorrectly implemented, until it has been shown to be fixed by a new release or the field definition matches the implementation. To do otherwise would encourage the incorrect implementation of open Web standards. ....Roy On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:10 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Confused%20by%20DAA's%20messages.%20Please%20explain&In-Reply-To=%3CF273C7E2-800B-4115-B7EF-1260515985F1%40gbiv.com%3E&References=%3CF273C7E2-800B-4115-B7EF-1260515985F1%40gbiv.com%3E>> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 , "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Confused%20by%20DAA's%20messages.%20Please%20explain&In-Reply-To=%3CF273C7E2-800B-4115-B7EF-1260515985F1%40gbiv.com%3E&References=%3CF273C7E2-800B-4115-B7EF-1260515985F1%40gbiv.com%3E>> wrote: > >> On Jul 6, 2013, at 5:29 PM, David Singer wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 2013, at 10:20 , Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Confused%20by%20DAA's%20messages.%20Please%20explain&In-Reply-To=%3CF273C7E2-800B-4115-B7EF-1260515985F1%40gbiv.com%3E&References=%3CF273C7E2-800B-4115-B7EF-1260515985F1%40gbiv.com%3E>> wrote: >>> >>>> I can't speak to the DAA proposal (having not even read it yet while on vacation), but I can say that I will continue disregarding semantically invalid HTTP signals no matter what anyone else's opinion might be. >>> >>> syntactically invalid I understand. >>> >>> what do you mean by 'semantically invalid'? contradictory? or you believe I don't mean what I am saying? or something else? >> >> DNT:1 has a defined semantic. If it is sent by a client when that >> semantic is not true, then it is an invalid use of HTTP. > > And which semantics can be ascertained to be true or not, remotely? I am genuinely curious. > >> >> ....Roy > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. >
Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 17:53:22 UTC