- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:48:10 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Shane, On Sunday 01 April 2012 20:54:12 Shane Wiley wrote: > I disagree with your basic premise here: '"Out-of-band" is creating the > trouble, because it imports troubles from outside in our definition space > and we have to decide in how far we accept that (see below).' You can't have the cake and eat it too. Either you take some rule from outside (out of band is superior of what we define here) and you accept that the discussion about quality of out of band agreements for DNT compliance is in scope for our Group. Or you say, those out of band agreements have some legal value outside DNT and we do not discuss it here but manage the semantic clash in our legal department. In this case you may well say that because you have out of band agreement, you break DNT compliance without legal consequences. Or we create some rules under which out of band is taken into account by DNT while still maintaining DNT compliance. That needs definition of some requirements for out-of-band agreement as accepted for compliance with the _Specification_. But what we should not accept is allowing services to say "we do DNT" while basically ignoring DNT-rules because of an undefined out of band agreement. This is so prone to abuse that DNT would become meaningless IMHO. Best, Rigo
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 14:48:44 UTC