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

tracking-ISSUE-102: Short names & titles of specifications [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

From: Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 01:18:25 +0000
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RPOiH-00086N-32@lowblow.w3.org>

tracking-ISSUE-102: Short names & titles of specifications [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]


Raised by: Aleecia McDonald
On product: Tracking Definitions and Compliance

As per email from Karl (below for ease of finding again) there was discussion of changing names for specifications. In the end there is not enough interest / consensus on new names to support moving forward in the limited time left before asking to transition the FPWDs, with several people in favor of keeping the names as is. We may wish to revisit at our next f2f, or a bit before, so we are clear for the first Last Call document.

Email from Karl Dubost, 8 Nov 2011:

Currently the name of the Editor drafts for the specifications are

# Tracking Definitions specification

Title:     Tracking Compliance and Scope Specification
shortname: tracking-compliance

Title:     Tracking Concepts and Definitions Specification
shortname: tracking-definition

# Tracking HTTP headers specification

Title:     Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
shortname: tracking-dnt

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/

* `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. 
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2011 01:18:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:42 UTC