- From: Dobbs, Brooks <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:25:53 +0000
- To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I don't think anyone is advocating second guessing "the user". I would say, however, that there may be times when there exists significant evidence from which to conclude that we have not in fact heard from "the user". -- 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 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. On 4/18/14 1:41 PM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote: >On 17/04/2014 20:22, Justin Brookman wrote: >> On yesterday's call, we discussed ISSUE-207 (Conditions for >>Disregarding (or Not) DNT Signals) against the Compliance specification. >> Previously, some working group participants had argued that servers >>should never disregard or second guess DNT signals that are correctly >>formed (syntactically valid). However, as we crafted the TPE, we >>explicitly provided for a mechanism that allows servers to signal to a >>user that they are disregarding the signal. As adherence to TCS (or any >>other compliance regime) is voluntary anyway, there may no longer be an >>argument that TCS should prohibit disregarding certain DNT headers. In >>any event, no one on the call yesterday expressed support for the >>previous change proposal to require servers to honor all DNT requests. >> >> If anyone wishes to argue for amending the TCS to require compliance >>with all DNT signals --- or alternatively thinks that TCS needs to be >>revised to make it more clear that servers have the option to send a D >>(disregard) signal --- please reply on the mailing list. Otherwise, we >>will close the issue with no further edits as decided by consensus in >>two weeks. >> >Rob already as argued for this better than I can. It only stands to >reason that syntactically well-formed DNT requests are honoured without >second guessing the user. > >Regards, > > Walter >
Received on Friday, 18 April 2014 18:26:22 UTC