- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:24:09 +0100
- To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
On Jul 8, 2013, at 19:06 , Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com> wrote: > 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). No, we don't require that it be set 'individually' we say it has to be the result of a conscious choice by the user. The user indicating that they want 'private browsing', which requests BOTH local and remote behavior (a new local context, and DNT sent) is entirely consistent with an explicit user choice. Please try to distinguish your reading from facts…Roy could think about it, for user, but he's not required, and I would advise him against it. > > 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 > > 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 > > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 , "Roy T. Fielding" < > fielding@gbiv.com > > 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 > > 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. > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 18:24:39 UTC