RE: extensions in Determining User Preference

That's what this API is for - to allow the plug-in to retrieve the browser's setting.

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane M Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 10:26 AM
To: Adrian Bateman; David Singer; Roy T. Fielding
Cc: Nicholas Doty; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: RE: extensions in Determining User Preference

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 18:04:55 UTC