W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Proposed Resolution to ISSUE-151 : User Agent Requirement: Be able to handle an exception request

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>
Message-ID: <3727664.n9BU2mCJQ3@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:07 UTC