RE: TPE latest

I understand the rationale and I do not disagree. The rationale should be moved to  5.2 as it has a clarifying function there.

On Xbox one, if the dialog had a preselected setting that needed confirmation at first use, I do not see the problem. Seems to me a clear example of confirmation by the user of the setting ar first use.The user action in this use case seems to me the confirm button. 
 Moreover, UI is out of scope. 
Rob

-----Original message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding
Sent: Thursday, August 31 2017, 2:50 am
To: Rob van Eijk
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: TPE latest

On Aug 30, 2017, at 6:45 AM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> > wrote:

Moreover, Subsection 10.1 is redundant as it is already explained in subsection 5.2. Moreover, subsection 10.1 is not a privacy consideration as such. It has a clarifying function, which is already addressed in subsection 5.2. 

Therefore, I suggest deleting subsection 10.1. (I made the remark on 21 August, URL: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2017Aug/0017.html).


And my response still stands: we are encountering implementations and
public statements that explicitly violate the protocol semantics of 5.2.


For example, my recently acquired XBOX ONE S web browser, which claims to be
Edge, just popped up the privacy dialog on first use this weekend and it had
sending of DNT:1 pre-selected for me.

I think that more than justifies a little redundancy in the spec, particularly
since section 10.1 doesn't just restate the requirements -- it explains their rationale
with regard to privacy considerations.

....Roy