Am Sat, 21 Nov 2015 20:34:49 +0100 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no>:
> It's interesting to see that FSF fails this test themselves. They're > using a third party DNS service for one of their DNS servers (FSF > France, which is a sister organisation of the FSF, hence a third > party.) You also should mention all that third party routers they are using to deliver their content. Seriously: "No reporting of site visitors to third parties" does not imply to not use common and necessary Internet infrastructure. If you really think it can be misunderstood this way, please come up with better wording. > (They also fail the second part of B1, since they're using tracking > tags in pages by way of using piwik, as well as using ETags, whose > principal usage today is tracking.) The purpose of Etags is - as you certainly know - to make caching more efficient. They are an important part of HTTP/1.1. There surely is misuse of Etags. But I doubt that this misuse is "the principal use" and the guidelines forbid this misuse. Anyway: if you don't have evidence that FSF is misusing Etags for tracking you should refrain from such accusations. > > I think such a requirement, when treated as written is entirely too > strict. It disallows the use of best-practices technologies like > CDNs. It would be interesting to compare CDNs (which are controlled by the service provider) against caching proxies (not controlled by the service provider) with respect to user tracking. My opinion: CDNs allow for better controlling and tracking visitors and are therefor preferred by many service providers. I wouldn't call that "best-practices technology". Werner