Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

>> 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


Maybe you could explain what you mean by header field semantics? You keep
going on about it but nowhere do you actually explain in English exactly
what you mean. Maybe it's just me but the only semantic I can read in to
DNT=1 is Do Not Track Me - it's binary.

>> if we all agree to shun those who fail to uphold the semantics

Again - insufficient data. How can you shun a DNT=1 signal.

The only way you can challenge a signal is if 'you' e.g. humanoid thinks
that something is amiss from a certain IP address and then codes a 'patch'
that asks for verification from that IP address via user generated
exception. And if that's the case I can't imagine that it won't take but a
moment for a plugin vendor to simply trap the exception in the background,
answer with a '1' and send it back.

The DNT design is binary - you're going to have to live with it.


Peter



On 7/23/13 1:49 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

>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 20:27:50 UTC