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

Re: action-307, issue-119, absolutely not tracking

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:00:51 +0100
Cc: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <8F41322B-4999-4428-A123-117139860A46@apple.com>
To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>

On Nov 8, 2012, at 16:56 , "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com> wrote:

> David,
> 
> Admittedly, I needed to start by looking up "bike-shedding", but, having
> done so, I am not sure I agree.
> 
> I think it would help us all to fully appreciate that UGEs aren't
> exceptions to how DNT:1 is processed by a specific site; if an exception
> at all, they are exceptions to DNT:1 being sent to ALL sites.  Isn't this
> fundamentally different?  A UGE site has no way of knowing if they are "an
> exception" or if the user's base line choice was to send DNT: 0 to all
> sites.  I could imagine this having implications for sites that appear as
> both 1st and 3rd parties.

I agree.  That's one of the reasons I don't like the word 'exception' and would prefer 'permission' for what users do.  "You are getting permission from this user" (and it's not known whether this is a blanket grant to everyone or specific to you).

> 
> In any event, I think we ought to be as consistent and clear as possible.
> Where something isn't an exception (or where the meaning of what it is an
> exception to is unclear) we should fix the language.  Agree?

What I meant by bike-shedding was fiddling with the labels while we have technical work to do; I think a global rename would be easy later, once we know the substance of what the label applies to.  (Maybe I am an optimist.)  So I have been content to leave changing labels until later, that's all.

> 
> 
> -Brooks
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
> Wunderman Network
> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
> brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com
> 
> 
> 
> This email  including attachments  may contain confidential information.
> If you are not the intended recipient,
> do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
> immediately and delete the message.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/8/12 10:33 AM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Nov 8, 2012, at 16:30 , "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Just as a point of clarification here I am noticing some language I
>>> believe to be technically incorrect entering into the discussion.  To be
>>> clear - "short term collection" is NOT an exception; it is a permitted
>>> use.
>> 
>> sorry.  you are quite right.
>> 
>>> 
>>> This actually highlights another issue.  For consistency we may need to
>>> change the language around user granted "exceptions" because they aren't
>>> really exceptions.  An exception would be a special dispensation to
>>> process a DNT: 1 signal differently than would otherwise be allowed.
>> 
>> I have long felt that users give 'permission' (not 'exception') and that
>> we need a different word for what the spec. allows in restricted
>> circumstances (not 'permission' or 'exception').  But this is
>> bike-shedding...
>> 
>> 
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 16:01:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC