- From: Dan Auerbach <dan@eff.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:59:19 -0700
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Brooks, Thanks for the friendly amendment -- I agree that this is better. Dan On 06/26/2013 06:23 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: > Dan, > > Should we be a little more clear on our syntax here? Without commenting > on substance, shouldn't this read: > > > "Example: A browser which has a first-run option that forces a user to > choose between DNT: 1, DNT: 0, or keeping DNT unset, would be considered > compliant to the DNT standard, as signals sent out based on this > implementation reflect the user's affirmative DNT choice." > > > DNT is "enabled" in either case (0|1). > > -Brooks > >
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 15:59:48 UTC