- From: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:26:26 +0000
- To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I would recommend we bar plug-ins from representing the DNT signal directly on their own in v1 and instead require they must communicate via the web browser's DNT setting only. I thought we had already captured this requirement. -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Bateman [mailto:adrianba@microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 10:11 AM To: David Singer; Roy T. Fielding Cc: Nicholas Doty; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) Subject: RE: extensions in Determining User Preference On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 8:31 AM, David Singer wrote: > Hi Roy > > something I am not clear about - was this introduction of a 'must' the > consequence of a decision we needed to implement, or something you > noticed and believed needed fixing? > > If it's the former, could you identify the decision? I think that if > it's the latter, we're at the stage where we need to say "there is an issue here" > and let the group and chairs decide whether to make a technical > change, rather than just making it. > > (I'm still pondering the merits of the change itself, and I think we > may well need to discuss it.) My main concern with the proposal is the MUST requirement: "A user agent that allows extensions to directly make or modify HTTP requests MUST provide a corresponding API to those extensions for determining the user's tracking preference." The spec gives some examples of extensions but doesn't really define them. There are many different ways to extend a browser and I'm not convinced it is always possible to provide such an API. In the past, IE and others have provided similar APIs to allow plug-ins to determine private browsing modes so I don't think it's an unrealistic goal in general. However, it will be possible to write an extension where it would be hard to provide such an API and I think we need to recognise this in the spec. Given the previous discussions in this group I'm hesitant to suggest it but I think this requirement should be a SHOULD. Cheers, Adrian.
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 17:27:59 UTC