RE: extensions in Determining User Preference

Unless there is a full sandbox it would be impossible to legislate anyway. Headers can be inserted by proxies etc. Saying UAs MUST do something often impossible obscures the real issue i.e. honouring user choice.

mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane M Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com]
> Sent: 08 April 2014 19:23
> To: Mike O'Neill; 'David Singer'; 'Adrian Bateman'
> Cc: 'Roy T. Fielding'; 'Nicholas Doty'; public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: 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 [mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 11:15 AM
> To: 'David Singer'; 'Adrian Bateman'
> Cc: 'Roy T. Fielding'; 'Nicholas Doty'; public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: 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
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTRDy6AAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JwwgIAMTkqHFTV9mWHfhCCRKB
> vVTp
> 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 18:57:51 UTC