- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:31:10 -0700
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- CC: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, "publ >> \"public-tracking@w3.org\"" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
<PROPOSED CHANGE> "... users may be given a choice during installation, update or first startup." </PROPOSED CHANGE> Rob On 20-6-2012 17:12, Rigo Wenning wrote: > Matthias, > > I think your message addresses my concern. One of the improvements > in wording would be to mention Rob's suggestion that the user may be > given a choice during installation or first startup. This was re- > iterated by others as a good way to reflect user choice. > > It matches what you expressed as consensus below. > > Best, > > Rigo > > On Sunday 17 June 2012 19:45:25 Matthias Schunter wrote: >> Hi Rigo, >> >> >> after being underwater while changing jobs, I finally read the >> current spec. >> >> I have finally read the spec and I believe that >> a) Our agreement (ISSUE-4) is correctly reflected in the spec >> albeit the current language could benefit >> from further editorial improvements to enhance clarity. >> b) That the well-known URI / response headers need discussion and >> improvements and that this discussion is not yet over. >> Roy had the mission to merge response headers into his >> proposal (what he did) and the result needs more polishing. >> >> Since I believe that we all agree that a default can be an >> expression of preference (e.g., if I install a privacy-enhanced >> browser that is permitted to ship with DNT;1 as default), feel >> free to indicate text updates to clarify the text to fully >> communicate this agreement. We also agreed that installing >> general-purpose tools (browser, OS, antivirus, ...) is not such >> a declaration of prefefence and thus those tools must not ship >> with DNT on (e.g., DNT;1). However, they may enable DNT by asking >> their user during installation. >> > >
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 00:32:54 UTC