- From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:39:41 -0400
- To: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org> wrote: > "The same cannot be said about a DNT-1 signal that looks 100% valid, but is being rejected based on the fact some ad networks have decided the UA-side settings are not up to par." > > I agree that parties shouldn't be able to make up reasons to reject the DNT:1 signal and still claim compliance. In this case, however, I think we're talking about servers rejecting a signal from a UA that is clearly not compliant with the standard. Nothing is made up here. It's very clear. In this case, I believe we should have flexibility to honor or not. Binding industry to acknowledge invalid UAs seems to be a dangerous path to go down. What I think about here is something I do regularly: spoofing my browser's UA string. So, if I have DNT:1 set and am spoofing my UA string (so I'm using a DNT-compliant UA that just appears to be a non-compliant UA), it would seem that the DNT setting would likely not be honored, despite my intent. I can imagine there are other ways to "detect" UAs, but "spoofing" may evolve to mimic those distinguishing properties too (for example, for testing web design). best, Joe -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Postdoctoral Research Fellow Media, Culture and Communication New York University https://josephhall.org/
Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 19:40:49 UTC