W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Batch closing of TPE issues (Deadline: December 03)

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:49:48 +0100
Message-ID: <52B03A5C.7030702@schunter.org>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, public-tracking-announce@w3.org
Hi Team,


thanks a lot for the feedback!

I have now closed issues 137, 161, 164, 168, 195, 197.

Based on your feedback, we started discussions on ISSUE-153 and I did 
not change its status.

If you believe I closed an issue in error, feel free to point to the 
corresponding messages on the list.


Regards,
matthias

Am 14.11.2013 10:10, schrieb Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation):
> Hi Folks,
>
>
> while we are working on the new issues, I suggest we close the set of 
> TPE-related issues that have been PENDING REVIEW for many months. 
> These document the outcome of our former discussions on TPE where we 
> reached a conclusion that resulted in text. For each of those issues, 
> the text resolving the issue is already included into the TPE spec 
> (and has been there for a long time).
>
> Please: Validate that you can live with the resolution of the enclosed 
> issues (Deadline: December 03).
>
> In case you want to object to closing an issue, please provide the 
> required documentation (see "the plan"), i.e., roughly you should say 
> why the issue cannot be closed, what concern you have that is not 
> addressed, and what alternative text you proposed to mitigate your 
> concern.
>
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> matthias
>
> --------------8<------------------
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137
> ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between 
> first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first 
> party (s)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153
> ISSUE-153: What are the implications on software that changes requests 
> but does not necessarily initiate them?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161
> ISSUE-161: Do we need a tracking status value for partial compliance?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/164
> ISSUE-164: To what extent should the "same-party" attribute of 
> tracking status resource be required
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/168
> ISSUE-168: What is the correct way for sub-services to signal that 
> they are taking advantage of a transferred exception?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/195
> ISSUE-195: Flows and signals for handling "potential" out of band consent
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/197
> ISSUE-197: How do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is received?
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 11:50:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 December 2013 11:50:14 UTC