W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > April 2008

ACTION-723: Raise discussion on session settings vs persistent settings

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:38:24 +0200
Message-ID: <480CA6E0.4030203@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

If I recall correctly, it started with an in-scope/out-of-scope 
discussion resulting in the "Control by Administrative or Other 
Arrangements" section (now §3.2.3) being created and detailed.

I proposed a list of examples to fill that section, Bryan amended it and 
proposed to add user static preferences  as an example in the list of 
out-of-scope examples. Last email of the thread is available at:

The idea was that static (or permanent) settings would be out-of-scope 
while session (or semi-permanent) settings would be in scope. There were 
some more discussion during a call where we wondered what session could 
mean here:
... and created this action.

Persistent vs. Semi-persistent?
Actually, the more I think about it, the less I understand why we should 
make a distinction (even less, oppose) persistent and semi-persistent 

- both pre-suppose that the CT-proxy has means to record the user's 
- in both cases, we're talking about control by the User.
- in both cases, we're mostly talking about indirect interaction between 
the CT-proxy and the user. In other words, the user is not prompted by 
the proxy during browsing (although he may be), but rather sets 
preferences prior to browsing.
- I'm not sure there's any such thing as the notion of a "user session" 
in most CT-proxies. Is there?

To split them between in-scope and out-of-scope seems confusing. I 
suggest we simply don't make any distinction between "persistent" and 
"semi-persistent", and call the whole thing "persistent" (or "static"?)

Proposed resolution
Rewrite §3.2.1 roughly based on what it was before:
"They MAY also provide the ability for their users to make a persistent 
expression of preferences."


PS: note this is different from the discussion we need to have on 
"session" for "consistency" purposes in §4.1.2.
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 14:39:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:29 UTC