- From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 00:59:48 +0000
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Glad that's cleared up. All Microsoft had to do then to be syntactically compliant is offer the user a "Enhance my privacy when browsing" choice during initial setup and it renders moot your argument - which if I remember correctly is the 'default' when the user goes through the set up. So this whole syntactic discussion was nothing more than a waste of time - because by the TPE everything currently being deployed is following the standard. We can now switch back to other topics like should it really be DNT=1 or DEIDENTITY-MY-DATA=1 based on the latest DAA proposal. Peter _________________________ Peter J. Cranstone On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:24 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com <mailto:singer@apple.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Confused%20by%20DAA's%20messages.% 20Please%20explain&In-Reply-To=%3CB9726257-84DF-4579-BDC0-8F7599F8B0D8%40gb iv.com%3E&References=%3CB9726257-84DF-4579-BDC0-8F7599F8B0D8%40gbiv.com%3E> > wrote: > > 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 Yes, as is stated in TPE section 3, IIRC. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 01:00:16 UTC