W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2011

Re: [comment] Names and Titles of specifications

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 12:47:11 -0800
Message-Id: <86BBFB40-048F-44C1-AB82-28D2D32D0155@gbiv.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:10 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:

> I realized that we should have discussed this 
> at the Working Group F2F, but it occurred to me 
> that there might be an issue with the names. 
> Specifically when we publish in TR/ space.
> 
> Currently the name of the Editor drafts for the specifications are
> 
> # Tracking Definitions specification
> 
> Current
> Title:     Tracking Compliance and Scope Specification
> shortname: tracking-compliance
> 
> Suggested
> Title:     Tracking Concepts and Definitions Specification
> shortname: tracking-definition
> 
> 
> # Tracking HTTP headers specification
> 
> Current
> Title:     Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
> shortname: tracking-dnt
> 
> Suggested
> Title:     Tracking Syntax specification
> shortname: tracking-syntax
> 	
> 
> # Rationales
> 
> * The conformance (or compliance as currently mentioned in the 
>  specifications) will happen in the two specifications. There 
>  will be MUST, SHOULD, etc keywords in both. Both specification 
>  will have conformance sections. One about syntax formalism, 
>  the other about respecting the header.
> 
> * Conformance is usually the term used at W3C for compliance. It 
>  has a precise meaning. I intend to make a review of both specs.
>  See http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
>      http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/26
> 
> * `tracking-dnt` makes the short name dependent on the header 
>  syntax. We might change our opinions about it in the future and 
>  choose another keyword for a reason or another. I would encourage
>  to use the word syntax instead, because it is what we are 
>  defining in that specification. 

No, there is no need to change the names or titles.

We can have implementations conform to the compliance document,
and the TPE short name is supposed to contain dnt because that is the
public handle for what we are doing (and there is absolutely no
chance whatsoever that the W3C will change the header field name,
since the browsers have already shipped -- at most we could define
a new spec with a different name for some future replacement).

In any case, the decision to publish has already been made.

…Roy
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 20:47:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:22 UTC