---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101124/#review2745
---
This review has been submitted with commit
5daad5fc120c00a69f31
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101124/
---
(Updated April 17, 2011, 4:22 p.m.)
Review request for kdelibs.
Changes
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 03:52:39PM -0400, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
>> First, the idea that DNT affects most sites lively hood is something
>> that has already been dispelled. For most sites, there is no reason to
>> track your browsing hab
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 03:52:39PM -0400, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> First, the idea that DNT affects most sites lively hood is something
> that has already been dispelled. For most sites, there is no reason to
> track your browsing habits to provide reasonable advertising on their
> pages.
>
indeed.
I didn't mean or say: "don't add the DNT header" (http is bloated anyway)
and i don't even oppose making it opt-out (the setting, ie. opt-in
tracking)
My general feeling is just that this is just some salvation promise and
Ossi's objection to not make it opt-out since otherwise the DNT won't
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:00:11PM +0200, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
>> On Friday 15 April 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
>> > > The configuration option is there to allow
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:00:11PM +0200, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Friday 15 April 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> > > The configuration option is there to allow the user to opt-in if
> > > they so choose.
> >
> > that's not a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101124/
---
(Updated April 16, 2011, 4:41 a.m.)
Review request for kdelibs.
Changes
2011/4/15 Ingo Klöcker :
> On Friday 15 April 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Maksim Orlovich
> wrote:
>> > > Ah, I misread the default. But still, I don't think we want to
>> > > send DNT:0 i
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Lübking
wrote:
> Am 15.04.2011, 21:00 Uhr, schrieb Ingo Klöcker :
>
>>> that's not a very wise default. if too many people will use it (*),
>>> the data miners will just ignore the standard, based on the rightful
>>> claim that most people didn't even explic
Am 15.04.2011, 21:00 Uhr, schrieb Ingo Klöcker :
that's not a very wise default. if too many people will use it (*),
the data miners will just ignore the standard, based on the rightful
claim that most people didn't even explicitly say they don't want to
be tracked.
Sorry, but this argumentati
On Friday 15 April 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Maksim Orlovich
wrote:
> > > Ah, I misread the default. But still, I don't think we want to
> > > send DNT:0 if the user unchecks the checkbox
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Maksim Orlovich wrote:
>> > Ah, I misread the default. But still, I don't think we want to send
>> > DNT:0 if the user unchecks the che
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Maksim Orlovich wrote:
> > Ah, I misread the default. But still, I don't think we want to send
> > DNT:0 if the user unchecks the checkbox, given how the label is worded
> > -- IMHO we wouldn't want
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Maksim Orlovich wrote:
> Ah, I misread the default. But still, I don't think we want to send
> DNT:0 if the user unchecks the checkbox, given how the label is worded
> -- IMHO we wouldn't want to send the header at all.
That makes no sense especially since not sen
Ah, I misread the default. But still, I don't think we want to send
DNT:0 if the user unchecks the checkbox, given how the label is worded
-- IMHO we wouldn't want to send the header at all.
On 4/14/11, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
>
> ---
> This
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101124/
---
(Updated April 14, 2011, 5:08 p.m.)
Review request for kdelibs.
Changes
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Maksim Orlovich wrote:
> Very cool. But re: original change. Are you sure we want to be sending
> the opt-in header by default?
No. We are sending the opt-out header by default. The "DNT: 1" which
will be sent, when the "DoNotTrack" is set to "true" (the default)
Very cool. But re: original change. Are you sure we want to be sending
the opt-in header by default? (Also, does KProtocolManager copy
kioslaverc into the metadata or something, or will that need a
separate change?). Can't really review this right now, but one thing
that I noticed:
// Read the con
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101124/
---
Review request for kdelibs.
Summary
---
The attach patch adds GUI con
20 matches
Mail list logo
