Re: ISSUE-161: Discussion of semantics and alternatives to "!"

Some in the group, myself included, prefer to not facilitate selective noncompliance with Do Not Track or second-guessing syntactically valid DNT: 1 signals.  The semantics of "D", "!", or any similar status should remain OPEN. 

Jonathan


On Monday, April 15, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> PS: We included the discussion of the new flag "D" (disregard) that signals that a site has chosen to disregard a DNT signal
> also under ISSUE-161. In the latest version of the TPE, both flags "D" and "!" are included as options and marked with ISSUE-161.
> 
> The goal of this flag is to allow sites that choose to disregard a signal (which is done today already) to provide transparency to the user.
> This allows the user agent and user to be aware of this fact and consider options for remediation.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> 
> On 15/04/2013 12:03, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> > Hi David/Jonathan,
> > 
> > 
> > thanks a lot for the pushback ;-)
> > 
> > I overlooked that ISSUE-161 is still discussed.
> > 
> > My interpretation of "!" is that the site makes no claims whatsoever and does not claim to comply with our standard. It can post a "!" for whatever reasons it likes. Examples include testing, debugging, problems with enforcement, not liking DNT, ...
> > Since the site says "I do not follow DNT", it is equivalent of not posting any DNT-related information and furthermore, if a site posts "!" it is not bound by any constraint that we make. The goal was to, e.g., allow 
> > a site to build the DNT infrastructure (including a "!" flag) while then removing the "!" once everything works. It is basically a shortcut for removing all DNT-related infos from a site.
> > 
> > I believe that such a signal is useful and I do not see any harm (feel free to explain the downside if you see any).
> > 
> > Could someone sketch potential alternative semantics and/or additional signals that are needed within the scope of ISSUE-161?
> > 
> > 
> > Regards.
> >  matthias
> > 
> > On 12/04/2013 17:03, David Wainberg wrote:
> > > Hi Matthias,
> > > 
> > > On 161, the "!" signal, while we do seem to have consensus on the signal, I do not believe we have reached consensus on the precise meaning or the language describing it in the spec. Therefore, the issue should remain open.
> > > 
> > > -David
> > > 
> > > On 4/12/13 9:00 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > 
> > > > as part of our final cleanup in preparation of our next working draft, I suggest to close the issues listed below.
> > > > 
> > > > Please respond by April 16 if you cannot live with the proposed resolution of those issues.
> > > > If you do so, please include a justification and describe what concern of yours is not addressed in
> > > > the currently documented draft of the TPE.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > >  matthias
> > > > 
> > > > --------------
> > > > 
> > > > ISSUE-112 (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112) 
> > > > OPEN
> > > > How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112)
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
> > > > 
> > > > REASON:
> > > > - We agreed to use cookie-matching-like wildcards and rules to allow
> > > >   for code-reuse in user agents
> > > > - This is reflected in the spec
> > > > 
> > > > ISSUE-144 (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144) 
> > > > 
> > > > User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior while granting and for future requests? (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144
> > > > 
> > > > REASON: In the new exception model, user agents are required to communicate the status of an exception.
> > > >  The status may be changed by end users and no further requirements are needed. This is reflected in the spec.
> > > > 
> > > > NOTE: We still have an open issue whether user agents are required to implement the exception API.
> > > > 
> > > > ISSUE-161 (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161) 
> > > > 
> > > > o we need a tracking status value for partial compliance or rejecting DNT? (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161
> > > > 
> > > > RESOLUTION: 
> > > > - We defined a "!" indicator that says that the site is not claiming to comply (e.g., maintenance / under construction)
> > > > 
> > > > ISSUE-185 (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185)
> > > > WebWide Not 
> > > > 
> > > > There should not be an API for web-wide exceptions (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185
> > > > 
> > > > RESOLUTION:
> > > > - We reached agreement that there will be an API for web-side exceptions
> > > > 
> > > > ISSUE-143 (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143)
> > > > Reciprocal Consent 
> > > > 
> > > > Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143
> > > > 
> > > > REASON:
> > > > - We will have this discussion as part of ISSUE-194.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>