3 ms·
Could this perhaps have been Microsoft's intention? They've implemented a widely unpopular feature that is bound to be circumvented on a large scale. They basic
by imtyler 14y ago
Could this perhaps have been Microsoft's intention? They've implemented a widely unpopular feature that is bound to be circumvented on a large scale. They basically bastardized the execution of DNT, making it moot while at the same time protecting them from any personal liability. Or am I being cynical?
- prezjordan 14y agoYou're absolutely right. MS gets to say "We have the safest browser" and users get nothing but a false sense of security. Google and FF look bad for not implementing this same feature, even though it doesn't protect the user from anything whatsoever.
- ianstormtaylor 14y agoCould be, but to be fair their implementation is in line with the DNT draft which says that DNT=1 is a valid default for user agents. Maybe the draft writers didn't think through what the consequences would be for DNT support if DNT=1 became the default in any majority of browsers. The way I see it either the consequences for not respecting DNT need to be greater somehow or the default implementation can't be DNT=1 because third parties will simply ignore it. Without consequences, a default of DNT=1 just weakens the draft and hurts the people who really do want to block everything.