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

Re: Issue Maintenance

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:19:18 +0200
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2C476B0E-915E-4F75-9DBB-0459387BD24A@gbiv.com>
To: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Matthias Schunter wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------
> PENDING REVIEW -> CLOSED
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/95
>  ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking
> preference for a user?
>  Reason: Resolution in current WD did not raise comments
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/107
>  ISSUE-107: Exact format of the response header?
>  Reason: Proposal in Sec 5.2 in current WD did not raise comments
>    Note 1: I perceive the discussion of the format to be closed
>      If we choose headers, we are likely to use the current proposal
>    Note 2: The discussion whether to use headers and/or URIs is still open.

Er, no, we are waiting for Tom's rewrite.  That will almost certainly
change the format, at least if I understood it correctly.  We do not
have consensus on the current format.

> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/120
>  ISSUE-120: Should the response header be mandatory (MUST) or
> recommended (SHOULD)
>  Reason: "SHOULD" in current WD (5.2.1) did not raise comments

Also part of Tom's header proposal -- it will be a MAY + MUST on
certain responses that cause a change in tracking status.

....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 15:19:47 UTC

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