- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:11 +0100
- To: Haakon Bratsberg <haakonfb@opera.com>
- Cc: public-tracking-international@w3.org
Haakon, On Monday 25 February 2013 11:06:38 Haakon Bratsberg wrote: > I agree with Alan that we should schedule some time to the drafting of > TPWG recommendations. I consider the slots of -first party & third party -DNT:0 definition to be of that type. But before being able to have recommended wording, we need to generate some kind of agreement on whether we want to go down that route. The charter gives us some wiggle room that we will have to fill. > > Re Kimon's concerns; I'm concerned about speculations on detailed > outcomes of the EU revision of the data protection regulation, but I > agree with Rigo that we need to discuss how DNT fits into this > debate. I leave the speculations (and the speculoos) on outcomes of the EU regulation to the coffee break. It may be that everybody agrees in the coffee break that we should spend some official time on it. But for the moment I see violent agreement that > > @Rigo: It is not clear to me what "Data classes for DNT :0 - Editor > and next steps" is about. Definition of DNT:0 needs a clear extensible object. So this mainly is a discussion about the definition of DNT:0. I have changed it to say that now. But it may be to add an explanatory text as we advance in our common understanding of the points. --Rigo
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 18:11:23 UTC