Re: Confused by DAA's messages. Please explain

On Tuesday 09 July 2013 20:39:06 David Singer wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> of course exceptions send DNT:0.  I don't think that was the question.

Now if you can do the exception and send DNT:0 this does the trick for 
the EU users. What you would need additionally (anyway) is an interface 
to remove the granted exceptions. The only thing missing is then to turn 
on DNT:0 by default or per site. This is useful for the EU industry, but 
they can turn it on by UGE. What remains to do is a user convenience 
(turn on DNT:0 for those (banking sites) that I already know and that 
are ok to monitor me without passing by UGE)

But if we require UGE to be possible to overcome the DNT:1 spawning 
routers and UGE needs DNT:0 then declaring DNT:0 optional is an implied 
contradiction, because you need it for the mandatory UGE anyway. So 
saying DNT:0 is not required is kind of strange..

 --Rigo

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 21:13:49 UTC