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

Re: ACTION-359: Add proposal for ISSUE-161 to allow an indicator of non-compliance within the tracking status value for testing and deployment

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 02:15:27 -0800
Cc: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F36CE005-6BD6-4B28-B644-E12B69E5BE4C@gbiv.com>
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
On Feb 10, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> Some (myself included) object to a general signal for noncompliance.  The shared concern is that websites will claim they "implement Do Not Track" (i.e. the TPE protocol) when they do not implement the TCS compliance policy.
> 
> There seemed to be greater comfort with a noncompliance signal scoped solely to temporary testing.  I would still be uneasy.
> 
> Jonathan


Please direct your comments to the specific proposal that appears
in the editors' draft:

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#tracking-status-value

I believe that both the first paragraph of 5.2 and the definition
provided for the ! status are quite clear and cannot be confused
with implementing the tracking protection protocol.  If you don't
think so, please provide alternate wording.

I am less sure about confusion regarding implementing Do Not Track,
since we haven't defined that, but I seriously doubt that there
is any incentive whatsoever for sites to say that they implement
DNT when they don't actually do so.

....Roy
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 10:15:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:04 UTC