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

Re: Housekeeping: Closing ISSUE-140 (concrete/explicit list of exceptions)

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:20:39 -0700
To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Message-ID: <06FE87B9590E4495915FC63B5F6E0E43@gmail.com>


On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> 
> thanks for the feedback!
> 
> As part of the other response, you said that you disagree with the all-or-nothing approach of the API.
> I agree that this needs discussion.
Yes.  Is there a separate issue for whether exception requests are all-or-nothing?  If not, there should be. 
> ISSUE-140 was about whether explicit-explicit exceptions shall be possible. 
> 
> According to my understanding, our conclusion was that this should be possible: 
> - A site can publish its third-parties using the tracking-status resource (field third-party)
> - A user agent MAY constrain a site-wide exception to this list of third parties
> - A user agent is free to not display those lists as part of the user interface (e.g.,
>   using one UI for site-wide with and without lists of third-parties)
Again, this was *your* proposal.  It met with sustained objections from multiple participants.  It does not have consensus.
> I double checked and I believe that this agreement may currently NOT be fully reflected in the draft.
> As a consequence, I will leave ISSUE-140 open.
> 
> TODO:
> - If you disagree with the outlined agreement, please provide alternative text
The TPE Editor's Draft already includes a JavaScript API for explicit-explicit exceptions.  I'd simply retain it.
> - If you agree with the outlined agreement, please continue to double check that we will follow through 
>   along those lines.
> 
> Is this OK with you?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> On 02/10/2012 23:44, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> > Matthias, 
> > 
> > You proposed this resolution in Bellevue, where it met with sustained objections.  We do not have agreement on whether to include a site-specific exception API, nor do we have agreement on its design.  ISSUE-140 should not be CLOSED. 
> > 
> > Jonathan 
> > 
> > 
> > On Monday, October 1, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Team,
> > > 
> > > I did some housekeeping and cleaned up our issue list prior to the 
> > > Amsterdam face2face.
> > > 
> > > ISSUE-140: Concrete list of domain-names for site-specific exceptions 
> > > - We agreed that such a list can be published at the well-known location
> > > - This is part of the current draft
> > > - I consider this issue closed and changed its status accordingly
> > > 
> > > Please drop me a line, if I misinterpreted or misstated our current status. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Regards, 
> > > Matthias
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 01:21:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:36 UTC