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

Re: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 01:19:20 +0200
To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Message-ID: <20728445.49r0yZ2Ejc@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Nobody has said that something is locked down! If you want to raise 
your suggestion of an additional response header allowing for 
several DNT or other regimes, please raise it as a new issue instead 
of piggy bagging on ISSUE-45. I do not think the Group is refusing 
that discussion and already substantially responded. Aleecia, as a 
good Chair, pointed out that we have discussed that in Seattle. And 
that she thought it was already decided. 

Note also that everything in a Specification is provisional until 
the Director has decided to move it forward. For the moment we do 
not even have a Last Call Draft. This is nothing more than some 
loose concept in terms of standardization. Nevertheless, I would 
like to point you to the fact that W3C was created because Tim could 
never finish an issue in the IETF because everybody could re-open at 
any moment in time. Re-opening ad nausea doesn't work either. W3C 
gives everybody sufficient space and time to voice their opinions. 
But at some point W3C also moves forward. All is defined in the 
Process document with appeals and helpers for decision making.

Rigo



On Friday 07 September 2012 16:08:21 David Wainberg wrote:
> Also sorry for piling on, but to put it slightly differently, my 
> understanding has been that much language in the spec has been 
> provisionally passed as strawman text, to be reconsidered in light
> of  future work. Given the  non-linear route we've taken to
> developing the spec, this seems like a necessity. I'd be shocked
> to hear now that text that was not objected to in the past, in
> the interest of letting the process move along, but with an
> understanding that it could be revisited later, is now locked
> down.
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 23:19:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:33 UTC