- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:32:26 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
David, On Tuesday 09 July 2013 14:39:36 David Singer wrote: > Please be careful with the use of words; compliance is a statement > about the spec., and the spec. doesn't require being able to send > DNT:0. Whether our EU users (or others) would find it desirable, > necessary, or useful is something we're evaluating. We're compliant; > whether a DNT:0 choice is needed for some users is another question. if you implement the exception mechanism and you can't send DNT:0, my logic parser crashes on both, the Spec and your implementation. It is not only EU. Everybody needs to express DNT:0. IMHO, this wasn't sufficiently understood when the decision to leave DNT:0 out was made (and I was drowned in legal stuff). You can leave DNT:0 out if you hardcode your site to either deal somebody as DNT:1 or as a target. The exception mechanism turning something to "unset" is again crashing my semantic parser. We had the discussion. As all the browsers said they really would like to implement DNT:0, I didn't make noise. But it has to be clear that implementing only two state makes the entire protocol and spec inconsistent IMHO. Except if you have a 150% US pure site view like Roy has. But then, the exception API is futile. --Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 19:32:57 UTC