Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

Hi Matthias,

I don't think we reached agreement on antivirus, at least according to Aleecia's summary:

> 	Implication B: AVG, as an anti-virus package and much more, may or may not count as a users' expression of privacy. We are still discussing this which leads to...
> 
> (2) Today we did not agree what threshold "counts" for a user expressing a privacy preference while selecting a user agent. We heard a variety of views and thresholds proposed. The conversation ended with:
> 	Action item on Ian to write text with his proposal (action-212)
> 	Action item on Justin to write text with his proposal (action-211)

thanks,
Lee

On Jun 17, 2012, at 10:45 AM, 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.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> 
> On 04/06/2012 11:34, Rigo Wenning wrote:
>> Your edits do NOT reflect the text in Aleecia's mail you claim to implement. 
>> I object to those edits. 
>> 
>> Rigo
>> 
>> On Monday 04 June 2012 01:37:07 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>> I have heard that at least some people seem to think the current
>>>> TPE spec is unclear about the no-header-by-default protocol
>>>> requirement, mostly because the same section focuses on intermediaries.
>>>> I intend to fix that as an editorial concern.  Please feel free
>>>> to send suggested text to the mailing list.
>>> I have added text based on Aleecia's original proposal that was
>>> reviewed in Santa Clara (IIRC), slightly modified to reflect the
>>> three alternatives (unset, on, off) we agreed upon and to fit
>>> within the determining/expressing/multiple-mechanisms order of
>>> the current spec.
>>> 
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2012Jun/0000.ht
>>> ml
>>> 
>>> ....Roy
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:42:48 UTC