W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking-comments@w3.org > June 2015

Re: TPE Last Call comments, re: validation of user signals (issue-260)

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:00:59 -0400
To: Nick Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, <Rachel.Glasser@groupm.com>, <pkosmala@aaaa.org>, <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, Chris Mejia <elementslifestylegroup@hotmail.com>, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>, <Max.Ochoa@turn.com>, <tstoute@eyereturn.com>, <mike@iab.net>, <alevenfeld@rocketfuel.com>, Vivek Narayanadas <vnarayanadas@rubiconproject.com>, <nadine.stocklin@pubmatic.com>
CC: <public-tracking-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D19DB6AF.62422%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Hi Nick - 


Thanks for your email. I haven't been involved in the TPWG in over a year
for reasons that are pretty well documented at this point.

Roy's feedback states that "controlled testing is a sufficient method for
validating the correctness of software semantics."

Well, OK. But that means that SOMEBODY still needs to expend time and
resources to perform those tests. Perhaps Adobe has the resources to
ascertain which signals are accurate and which are not accurate. Asking
smaller entities to expend those resources is not a reasonable ask given
all of the other issues confronting tech teams. In short, spending
resources with the hope of making a poorly conceived standard marginally
better isn't a good use of anyone's time and energy.

So if you're asking me if this addresses my concerns - it does not.

Thanks Nick.

Alan


On 6/9/15 7:04 PM, "Nick Doty" <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:

>Hi Jack, Rachel, Alan, Peter, Brooks, Chris, David, Max, Tim, Mike, Ari,
>Vivek and Nadine,
>
>Thank you for your comments (last June) on the TPE Last Call Working
>Draft. The Tracking Protection Working Group has discussed each of the
>issues and proposed resolutions. This email in particular describes
>discussion and proposed resolution regarding validation of DNT signals.
>
>Editor Roy Fielding has provided a detailed response to different
>comments related to this issue in email; I have provided the link below.
>I would briefly summarize the resolution as:
>* testing and other means can help to validate signals but specification
>cannot provide additional proof
>
>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Dec/0020.html
>https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/260
>
>Please let us know if these changes or explanations resolve your concerns.
>
>Thanks,
>Nick Doty, W3C (for the Tracking Protection Working Group)
>
>Re:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0001.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0003.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0005.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0007.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0009.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0010.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0011.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0012.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0014.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0015.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0016.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0019.
>html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2014Jun/0020.
>html
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 14:01:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 June 2015 14:01:53 UTC