- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:05:24 +0200
- To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>
- Cc: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Brooks, On Thursday 14 June 2012 09:39:16 Dobbs, Brooks wrote: > > trouble is that IE 10 is not non-compliant for all possible > > cases. There are tools that are non-compliant for all > > possible cases. > I am not sure I agree with that statement. If IE10's compliance > job is to communicate user preference in a manner that is > discernable to a server, when does it achieve this end? Our problem is precisely that we have no way to know whether a DNT:1 reflects a user intent. But this cuts both ways. From a bit-counting perspective, the header is a preference that is discernible by a server. So we have no additional guidance by that phrase. > As has > been pointed out, IE makes it impossible to discern between a > DNT:1 that is or is not an expressed user preference. You conclude without assumption :) We argue what to do in case we have a protocol violation. I suggest NACK and some suggest to send "I hate a certain browser". For the sake of decency, I would prefer the simple message as suggested by David Singer here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- tracking/2012Jun/0158.html Going beyond would likely trigger more concerns and meta-troubles in the process downstream. BTW, I was at the OBA meeting in Brussels and Madelin explicitly supported the idea of having a user choice menu during download/installation/first start-up If we would all agree on this, that could be a way out of the trenches. I maintain that the system is not complete if the exception mechanism doesn't work. Again, this is also a way to say no. Has anybody an idea whether IE10 will support the exception mechanism? Rigo
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 16:06:04 UTC