- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:33:12 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
On Monday 18 March 2013 17:40:23 David Singer wrote: > Must user-agents implement the API? If someone could explain to me > the functional difference between: * user-agent does not implement > the exception API > * user-agent does, but the user has told it never to accept an > exception The difference is that there is a communication channel. In your second case, if a UA has implemented the API, the service can issue a call whether it has an exception, can try to store, test again => still no exception, clear that the user doesn't want this => react accordingly. in the first case, the thing will just stubbornly spawn meaningless DNT:1 headers. Again, feedback mechanism, the service may decide to ignore this guy's DNT:1 and send a "D" for "Discarded". Your full implementation knows what's happening, the DNT:1 spawning 30-liner on your router won't. The user will lose out here. It burns down whether we want a communication tool or a stick to bang on services. I know that the browser makers have limited resources and this is not the money-making sweet spot. But implementing DNT hopefully gets some unrest out of the market. For that to happen, IMHO, we need a communication tool and not just a DNT:1 stick. If browsers don't implement their side of the communications tool, why should the services take the burden to implement the other side? => arms race again... --Rigo
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 10:33:38 UTC