- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:49:45 -0700
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Jul 23, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > On Tuesday 23 July 2013 11:37:31 Vinay Goel wrote: >> I suspect that companies are likely hesitant to use DNT as their opt >> out preference because they cannot detect/tell whether it was set by >> the user. > > There is a proposition on the table to require the implementation of the > TPE exception mechanism from a valid DNT client. Why don't you support > that to have a tool that tells you whether it was set by the user. This > would at least be constructive. That would not tell the site anything about whether DNT was set by the user. The only way that sites can assume anything about the meaning of DNT is if senders only send it with a certain meaning, as defined by the header field semantics, and the only way that is going to happen is if we all agree to shun those who fail to uphold the semantics. There is no technical fix. There are many social solutions. As long as advocates continue to lend support to those who abuse the DNT semantics, you can expect recipients to ignore the meaningless 8 bytes. If the header ever becomes meaningful again, then many sites will support it just because it reflects a user's preference, not because of the opinions of anyone in the WG. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 19:50:07 UTC