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

Re: ACTION-253 ISSUE: 119 and ACTION 208 ISSUE-148 Response signal for "not tracking" and definition for DNT:0

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:04:48 -0400
Message-ID: <50594460.6040607@networkadvertising.org>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>

On 9/18/12 12:57 PM, David Singer wrote:
>
>>> yup.
>>>
>>> 'indicates an explicit indication by the user that they have not asked not to be tracked' is the tightest literal meaning, but I hate sentences with that number of negatives.  can anyone do better?
>> Perhaps: "indicates an explicit indication by the user that they are willing to be tracked"
> probably good enough, and we can avoid the repetition by using a simple 'is'
>
> "is an explicit indication by the user that they are willing to be tracked (by the site receiving the header)"
>
It still bothers me to use the word "tracked" without defining it. 
Although intro and explanatory text talks about users expressing 
preferences with regard to tracking, I don't think the spec actually 
says that in light of DNT:1 a site may not track. Instead it lists out 
fairly complex terms about what a party may or may not do, without 
mention of tracking.
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 04:05:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:34 UTC