RE: extensions in Determining User Preference

Hash: SHA1

A SHOULD seems like a reasonable compromise. I don't think it warrants a huge debate at this point.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer []
> Sent: 08 April 2014 18:16
> To: Adrian Bateman
> Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Nicholas Doty; (public-
> Subject: Re: extensions in Determining User Preference
> On Apr 8, 2014, at 19:10 , Adrian Bateman <> wrote:
> > 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
> > 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.
> >
> I am with you.
> It seems like a good idea to have extensions respect DNT. However, (a) I am not
> sure we can reasonably provide this API for all types of software that could be
> considered an extension, plug-in or add-on; and (b) in some cases, where the UA
> is in control of networking done by the extension, as with Safari Extensions, it
> would be more appropriate for the UA to automatically add the right DNT
> header and therefore there is no need to expose the preference.
> Based on these points, I think the requirement should be, for now,  a SHOULD.
> I’m not saying that Roy hasn’t raised a good point; it’s that it needs
> consideration, looking at the cases, and so on.
> And I do feel that the spec. ought not be changing in normative language, at this
> stage, except by group decision (consensus or decision policy).  We could try and
> resolve this, or we could mark this question as one that we need feedback on
> during last call.
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.2.42.4591 -
Charset: utf-8


Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 18:16:10 UTC