- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 20:51:36 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Roy T. Fielding schreef op 2014-04-10 19:32: > On Apr 10, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: > >> I know Roy has already shot this down, but I'd say this intro (along >> with the current one) still has a deficiency. >> >> As I've said before, the intro should set up what the spec does >> without being misleading. The TPE is not a complicated spec in terms >> of capabilities on the UA side; you can alter the status quo either >> by sending a 0 or a 1. When we speak about expressing a preference >> your options are pretty limited 0, 1 or choose not to decide. The >> spec, as it sits, only requires the ability to communicate 1. It >> would have been a trivial change to the language to mandate that UAs >> MUST offer a DNT:0 option, but the consensus was not to mandate >> this. Fine, that was what was decided, but having so decided you >> need to reflect this decision in the introduction. This is not about >> obtaining "a preference" it is about obtaining "the preference" >> DNT:1. > > Not mandating the option be present is not the same as forbidding > that it be implemented. The protocol supports sending DNT:0 by > configured choice -- it is a MAY on implementation by UAs. > IIRC, Firefox already implemented it that way in its config, > but I haven't checked if it actually sends DNT:0 on the wire. > > ....Roy Ff sends DNT:0 on the wire, which makes this preference a key-building block for a consent mechanism. Rob
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2014 18:52:11 UTC