RE: extensions in Determining User Preference

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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

mike



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: 08 April 2014 18:16
> To: Adrian Bateman
> Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Nicholas Doty; public-tracking@w3.org (public-
> tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: extensions in Determining User Preference
> 
> 
> On Apr 8, 2014, at 19:10 , Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> 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
> 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.
> >
> 
> 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.
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.2.42.4591 - http://www.gpg4o.de/
Charset: utf-8

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTRDy6AAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JwwgIAMTkqHFTV9mWHfhCCRKBvVTp
VtjdVUP8rM+aGhuh9hJSE5USKf0Te5nG/uT628gU/eUsNzPiD7+wYSNbQKynmqY5
oRcP87nD/DRcL9o/ew0OQudOHMecgsI6+N0Pel5onc135xZQnRumT9KzPQe/4q0/
23Q64qTwULBHo4RuXrhtvj5NRkaEhS8w6wO8vqNJDcHGciloXdhpt+yjOWqBJD3F
cAnZtK8jadJB0ObBP4L/QKIVoMEERn+0z8kVZ1Rvv445WyQS9pkEmYf0uyaTHEY4
+5PF3rTbRixSilq9dizik/EF4y1hxF7D+McKIhBFWax6NDuaOx2oVSAxkr1qnX4=
=TB9w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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