Re: introduction to the TPE

No to belabor the point, and with full acknowledgement of your expertise here, we have a standard that can only alter from the default with 2 choice.  We made one optional.  Had we made one more optional then compliant UAs would not have had to offer any choice at all.  Given that only one choice option is mandated in compliance, it just seems logical and fair to reflect that in an introductory description.  I'll cede to your greater standards experience and end with that thought.

--

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com

[cid:93FE1A25-EF1C-4276-A0C6-B23DA6729A52]

This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender immediately and delete the message.

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>>
Date: Thursday, April 10, 2014 2:56 PM
To: Brooks Dobbs <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com<mailto:brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: introduction to the TPE

On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:

Okay so "forbidden" is a bit of a straw man here.  I don't think anyone said that it was forbidden.  I do maintain that  high level discussions that occur in an intro should stay with the things that compliant participants MUST do.

I don't, nor am I aware of any specification, at any SDO, that would
support such a view.  In fact, they almost always state what can be
done with the protocol, not the minimal subset of what has been required,
and often include wishful thinking about what might be possible
in the future.

As much as I appreciate all of these meta-discussions about how to
properly edit a specification, please keep in mind that I do have a
bit of experience in the matter and don't really need any more input
on things that fall in the realm of editorial preference.

What I need is input on the accuracy of what has been written, in
accordance with the WG decisions, and insight into what might be
missing to enable implementation, preferably in the form of patches
(before/after text) that can be easily adopted without several more
rounds of WG review.

If sending DNT:0 on every request was impossible or even discouraged
by the protocol, then I would have made your suggested edit.  However,
that is not the case, and the spec has not been interpreted that way
in practice.  We should therefore not discourage browsers from
implementing such a configuration on their own.

....Roy