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

Re: Batch closing of issues (ISSUE-144, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-190, ISSUE-173, ISSUE-138) [pls Respond by Jan 30]

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:38:23 -0500
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Message-id: <316592F0-211E-4128-8A3C-C29E66A3A0CA@apple.com>
To: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org> (Intel Corporation)

On Feb 11, 2013, at 16:31 , Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
> 
> I am OK with your first list of updates. I would only insert the novel ISSUES that are OPEN or PENDING_REVIEW since these are currently under active consideration by the group.

sure, that's the second list.  which of these should be in the TPE?

>> None of these are in the document at all; I rather suspect that issues we have taken up or tried to resolve (open, pending review) should be inserted:
>> 
>> 151				open	
>> 152				open	
>> 164				open	
>> 176				open	
>> 153				pending review	
>> 173				pending review	
>> 187				pending review	
>> 141				raised	
>> 143				raised	
>> 167				raised	
>> 182				raised	
>> 185				raised	


> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/02/2013 16:24, David Singer wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 2013, at 16:14 , Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Team,
>>> 
>>> fyi: I have closed ISSUEs 190, 173, 138
>>> I have left ISSUE-144 and ISSUE-187 open for our Wednesday discussion.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> matthias
>> 
>> That means the sync-up update changes:
>> 
>> my usual pass, looking at TPE issues as reported in the draft and the database.
>> 
>> 
>> issue	in document		in database		action
>> 
>> These mis-match in what is said; I have a suggested action in the last column.
>> 
>> 112		pending review	open			update DB
>> 137		pending review	open			update DB
>> 140		pending review	closed			remove from document
>> 144		open			pending review	update document
>> 160		pending review	closed			remove from document
>> 190		pending review	closed			remove from document
>> 
>> 
>> None of these are in the document at all; I rather suspect that issues we have taken up or tried to resolve (open, pending review) should be inserted:
>> 
>> 151				open	
>> 152				open	
>> 164				open	
>> 176				open	
>> 153				pending review	
>> 173				pending review	
>> 187				pending review	
>> 141				raised	
>> 143				raised	
>> 167				raised	
>> 182				raised	
>> 185				raised	
>> 
>> These match; no action required…
>> 
>> 111	postponed		postponed	
>> 136	open			open	
>> 159	raised			raised	
>> 161	pending review	pending review	
>> 168	open			open
>> 138					closed
>> 	
>>> On 21/01/2013 08:07, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>>>> Hi Team,
>>>> 
>>>> I suggest to batch-close the issues listed below that have been marked PENDING REVIEW for a while.
>>>> If you disagree with my proposal to close any of those issues, please respond by Wednesday, Jan 30.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> matthias
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> ISSUE-138: Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138
>>>> 
>>>> The issue was how to obtain exceptions without Javascript-able real-estate. Our discussions are reflected in Section 6.8 of the current spec and (unless someone objects), I plan to close ISSUE-138.
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> ISSUE-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
>>>> 
>>>> IMHO, the new approach to exceptions has removed the requirements on the user agent.
>>>> As a consequence, I believe we can close this issue.
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> ISSUE-187: What is the right approach to exception handling?
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/187
>>>> 
>>>> During the last call, I validated that there is a general preference for pursuing our rivised approach to exceptions (where the sites records preference and the UA may double-check it with the user). All participants can live with this approach.
>>>> I suggest to close ISSUE-187.
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>> ISSUE-190: Sites with multiple first parties
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/190
>>>> 
>>>> Roy has proposed changes as response to ACTION-328 and (unless there are objections), I suggest to implement the changes suggested:
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0004.html
>>>> 
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> ISSUE-173: The TPE uses "top-level domain" in a sense that is not the normal meaning
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/173
>>>> 
>>>> AFAIK, David Singer has introduced the corresponding bug fixes to the spec. This ISSUE has thus been resolved and can be closed.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 21:38:58 UTC

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