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

Re: [comment] Names and Titles of specifications

From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:16:42 -0600
Message-Id: <3407E7ED-3D5D-41D6-A8A5-A9E90400949B@consumerwatchdog.org>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
I favor keeping the current names.  Seems to me that they reflect what the standards are about. One defines how to send the DNT message.  The other is how to comply (conform) when the message is received.

I agree with Nick that using the DNT handle -- now in wide use, even we may need to define precisely what it means in the W3G context -- is useful.



----------------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
Tel: 310-392-7041
 

On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:

> I had hoped others would weigh in on this thread, but I thought I should at least clarify my support for the existing shortnames. (We're also short on time at this point. If we don't have a new consensus here, I suggest we should publish the agreed upon draft and change later if necessary.)
> 
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:10 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> 
>> * 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
> 
> Per my other message on this thread, I think "Compliance" is a good term for the spec that defines how services should comply with the user's tracking preference.
> 
>> * `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. 
> 
> I think using the commonly used handle "dnt" is valuable to have in the shortname. And are we only defining syntax in that spec? I think the mechanisms in that spec potentially goes beyond syntax.
> 
> Karl, in your suggestions you had "specification" at the end of each title (currently we have it on only the compliance document). Do you have a reasoning for using "specification" in the titles? Other W3C spec titles seem to be inconsistent.
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 15:17:52 UTC

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