- From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 22:35:25 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
On 25/10/2013 22:19, Justin Brookman wrote: > And we have not made such a decision! But if we were to do some version > of 3 or 4 (or 3.5), I believed I heard broad support for a definition of > tracking in the TPE document. However, if you now believe that is > unnecessary, you can propose that NO DEFINITION be included in the Call > for Objections. If we have a Compliance Spec that says what you can and cannot do when you receive a DNT signal, a definition of what tracking is, is not essential. Helpful, but you can have one without such a definition. If we are not going to have a Compliance Spec before finalising the TPE, we cannot have a TPE without a tracking definition. It just makes zero sense. Like I said before: I can live with a way forward that is without a Compliance Spec, but that means the TPE must stand on its own. A tracking definition is essential for such a scenario. Other things have to be added to the TPE as well, such as a response signal indicating whatever compliance spec the recipient is adhering to, if any. Regards, Walter
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 20:35:53 UTC