- From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:13:10 -0700
- To: "Mike O'Neill" <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <3CDB7255-7014-4ED9-B3F6-C0A7393BC437@aleecia.com>
Yikes. Tk:N makes utterly no sense to me (just re-read the spec to be sure,) so perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. Anyone else care to have a go? Aleecia > On Jun 28, 2017, at 9:22 AM, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote: > > Aleecia, > > Yes Tk:C is only needed for OOBC. If DNT:1 or unset is sent then the server can reply saying it has detected consent (i.e. from the cookie state) by replying with Tk:C, but if the request had DNT:0 then that suffices to indicate consent (the cookie state would not matter). Usually DNT:0 would come from a UA that had implemented the API, which the server had previously called to indicate consent. I would say the “correct” response then would be Tk: N, though other values would be technically valid. > > Mike > > > > > > > From: Aleecia M. McDonald [mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com] > Sent: 28 June 2017 16:40 > To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> > Cc: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-tracking@w3.org> > Subject: Re: CfO on Issue 22 - Strong objections to both options ;-( > > >> On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>> wrote: >> >> Of note, I plan to leave the table. I think T not C (as I asked to confirm in prior email) with C for out-of-band consent and not for DNT:0, but really, the spec isn't as crisp on that. It would be great to illustrate the intent here. And to get it right! > > > Meh. > > I’ve flipped back and forth on this a few times. I’m rather certain that DNT:0 *should* be C for consent in any sane world. It’s the whole point of a lot of things. Yet I also think the 6.5.mumble sections read as if C is only used for out-of-band consent, which may be inadvertent, or not. > > Could someone who paid full attention while this section was drafted please let me know what the intent is? > > I am trying to match what has been decided, not to re-open old issues at the 11th hour. At this point if I do not like the answer it is, to quote someone we all know, my tough luck. I just want to get it right and help people understand. > > Aleecia
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2017 00:13:47 UTC