RE: extensions in Determining User Preference

Mike and Team,

I respectfully disagree - we agreed in the past to maintain a strict attachment to the web browser for v1 so to create alignment I believe "MUST" is appropriate here.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike O'Neill [] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 11:15 AM
To: 'David Singer'; 'Adrian Bateman'
Cc: 'Roy T. Fielding'; 'Nicholas Doty';
Subject: 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 18:23:48 UTC