W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2012

checkin notes

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 05:03:24 -0800
Message-Id: <FC7EFA09-96A7-4615-8EE0-90AF8EE9BBA5@aleecia.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Chairs and editors on the DNT and Compliance specs have agreed to making our checkin notes public, so all interested observers can more readily keep track of what's changed in the documents. Checkin logs will automagically go to a new public dlist, coming soon. This will be strictly optional reading for WG members. If you're deluged enough, you can read the archives when you like, rather than subscribing. The new dlist will just receive checkin notes; any discussion will happen here on public-tracking.    

Because I've been bad about doing more than a quick one-line checkin note, as my penance, below are my detailed notes about what's in the latest changes to the Compliance spec. This likely is worth skimming this time to make sure you are still comfortable publishing sections 1, 2, and 3. Unless there are objections before or on the Wednesday call, we'll pick up with section 4 and move forward through the rest of the document. So please do look things over, since I will not go through 1-3 section-by-section again: just if and where there are concerns.

	Aleecia

Revision 1.36 notes:

Changes made in response to call on 29 Feb. See
http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-minutes.html for details.

Action-121
	Fixed "No DNT Signal / No Opt-Out:  Treat as DNT" to "Treat as
	DNT unset"; marked issue-57 & issue-35 as closed in the text
	and the issue tracker; closed action-121 too.

Acknowledgements
	Copied & pasted from the DNT doc; added contributions list
	from http://www.doodle.com/z9672cm55hgzvwys (which is
	certainly incomplete!)

Option names
       I had a hard time keeping this straight in my own head, so I
       added quick names for the options (e.g. "user expectations" for
       one of the choices of what a party is defined to be, etc.) If there
       is any debate over these, I'll go with how the proponents of a
       given option describe it, in 5 words or fewer. :-)
       While I was at it, cleaned up the option boxes better to put
       examples and use cases along with the correct options.

Action-124
	Per Shane's request, added incomplete text as an alternative
	proposal for first parties. I'll promote this to pending
	review once the text is complete (quick test: no trailing off
	with ...) I know Amy is at IAPP this week; pushed the deadline
	out.

Notes
	Per Roy, added a note that some participants are concerned the
	Jonathan/Tom first party proposal is not implementable as it
	is. If anyone would like to write a very brief (one line is
	good) parallel note for concerns with the discoverable
	ownership approach, we'll add that. 

	Added notes on areas that are still open, but have
	fairly low levels of controversy, as per the last phone conference.

	Added Shane's multi-party example in a note, since we haven't
	worked through that and at least Justin thinks it's covered by
	branding currently. 

	Set v. sequence in "network interaction" -- does anyone object
	to Roy's suggestion that this be sequence? If not, I suggest
	we change the text and this is closed.

Tracking
	Added a note from phone discussion. Added Roy's new suggested
	text, plus the option we not define tracking at all (per
	Justin / Jonathan).

Consent
	Added option boxes. Tried to figure out what to call these
	options. Halp?
	Added note with Roy's concerns.

Meaningful Interaction
	Now "affirmative intention" instead of "affirmatively
	clicking"; added note that wording is not final 


***
Revision 1.37 notes:

Acknowledgements
        Somehow failed to check in authors from
        http://www.doodle.com/z9672cm55hgzvwys (which is certainly
        incomplete!) in the last checkin. Odd. Fixed now.

Introduction
         Added text explaining white background=closed,
         blue=options. Added a note that we have yet to address CG
         comments. Editors, please modify as you see fit.

Scope and Goals
          Modified the note to reflect this section is far from
          done. Added three short paragraphs as discussed on the call
          last week. If there's something here that you cannot live
          with, let's discuss. Otherwise, let's wait until the
          document takes shape and write the intro close to last.

Drafting Notes
         Commented out prior notes, which felt dated (editors can
         restore if they wish.)


***
Revision 1.38 notes:

Content-free checkin
- Set lines to 78 characters in length to facilitate diffs
- Added	[[!TRACKING-DNT]] to x-ref to the DNT document where it	was
  written out instead
- Replaced smart quotes
- Spell check

***
Revision 1.39 notes:

Issue-65, added Andy's text as well as an option for not discussing at
all (topic: logged in state)

Compliance, added a note that the exact wording may change (based on response
header or known	URL) but the direction is agreed upon.

Commented out issue-35 and issue-52 tags, since we have text (that is,
no need	to call it out by issue number any more) and moved issue-67
and issue-83 down to the end of the section for readability.

Issue-95, added	a mashup of text from Shane	and David (topic: may someone
else set DNT for a user?) and noted this is not final text. Set
issue-95 to pending review (agree with Jonathan: should	not have been
closed when we did not have final text, or even any text, in the
document. Fixed.) Problem: we appear to	have this issue	in both
documents. We'll need to resolve where it lives. 

The geo-location section somehow lagged and issue-39 was not updated in
the document. As per my summary in "Housekeeping from today's call" on
8 Feb, went ahead and updated the geoloc as agreed, and noted text is
not final but direction is agreed upon. I am confused about how the
normative text goes with the non-normative text. To me it seems it
does not. I went ahead and tacked on a postal code discussion as per
the conference call, but it looks rather odd as it is. [Turns out some
of this	was updated, just not where I thought. I tried to put things
back together in sane order. I may have	failed, we'll want to walk
through this.]

Cleaned up the formatting for logged in status, putting option 1
before option 2, and text in blue boxes. Content untouched.

Cleaned up the formatting for issue-71, content untouched.

Added Rob/Rigo's revised text for issue-14 (EU data processors,) and a
note that this may move elsewhere and is pending review.
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 13:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:26 UTC