Re: Confused by DAA's messages. Please explain

David,

Sadly Roy MUST now add Mobile Safari on iOS to the list of syntactically
challenged browsers. If I turn on 'Private Browsing' in Mobile Safari the
'DEFAULT' is to set DNT=1 which is now a violation of the standard because
as a user I MUST be able to control that setting individually as in I want
Private Browsing by I want to be tracked. (I know crazy ­ but there you go).

So it looks like IE10 and iOS 6/7 are now out of the running on this spec. I
believe that wipes out several hundred million devices. But there you go ­
to do otherwise would be to promote the incorrect implementation of open Web
standards.




Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
Cell: 720.663.1752



On Jul 8, 2013, at 18:40 , "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com
<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Confused%20by%20DAA's%20messages.%
20Please%20explain&In-Reply-To=%3C0B066450-C325-4DCE-9161-6FCF09A4D300%40app
le.com%3E&References=%3C0B066450-C325-4DCE-9161-6FCF09A4D300%40apple.com%3E>
> wrote:

> 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.

I think you may be able to determine by inspection that a user-agent has a
default, in violation of the spec.  Is that what you mean?

I don't think you can determine which users explicitly confirmed that
setting, and want it, which I think is your paragraph below.

> 
> 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.%20Ple
ase%20explain&In-Reply-To=%3C0B066450-C325-4DCE-9161-6FCF09A4D300%40apple.com%3E
&References=%3C0B066450-C325-4DCE-9161-6FCF09A4D300%40apple.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.%20Pl
ease%20explain&In-Reply-To=%3C0B066450-C325-4DCE-9161-6FCF09A4D300%40apple.com%3
E&References=%3C0B066450-C325-4DCE-9161-6FCF09A4D300%40apple.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.%20Pl
ease%20explain&In-Reply-To=%3C0B066450-C325-4DCE-9161-6FCF09A4D300%40apple.com%3
E&References=%3C0B066450-C325-4DCE-9161-6FCF09A4D300%40apple.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.
>> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
 <mailto:fielding@gbiv.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Confused%20by%20DAA's%20messages.
%20Please%20explain&In-Reply-To=%3C0B066450-C325-4DCE-9161-6FCF09A4D300%40ap
ple.com%3E&References=%3C0B066450-C325-4DCE-9161-6FCF09A4D300%40apple.com%3E
>