W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Signals for internal / external usage of site elements (the signals formerly called "1" and "3")

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:50:10 +0100
Message-ID: <52CD1F52.8010208@schunter.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Walter,

fyi: The compliance regime can define "qualifiers". I.e., the 
alternative would be to define "1" and "3" qualifiers in compliance 
(while omitting this in the TPE).  This means that 1 and 3 would have a 
meaning/semantics that is defined in compliance and specific to this 
compliance regime.

By defining 1 and 3 in TPE, these concepts would be defined once for all 
potential compliance regimes. This makes sense if it is likely that many 
compliance regimes need this distinction in the way we define it. If the 
idea of elements "not to be re-used by other sites" is specific to our 
compliance regime, we should rather define it there.

Regards,
matthias


Am 08.01.2014 10:39, schrieb Roy T. Fielding:
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Walter van Holst wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-08 09:14, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>>> Hence, I don't think the merits of a tracking status value for 1/3
>>> come anywhere near to justifying its cost, both in terms of getting
>>> consensus on TPE and in getting implementations of the protocol in
>>> practice.  If there is ever a need for that information as a means of
>>> explaining compliance, then it can be included in a qualifier along
>>> with all of the other explanations of compliance.
>> Your arguments are quite convincing. The question that remains is if (and how) we would allow for future expressions of a tracking status according to whatever party definition from the applicable compliance spec.
>>
>> Do we include an optional signal here that is to be defined by the compliance spec? Or do we allow for such an optional signal to be defined by the compliance spec(s)?
> The latter is how the current editors' draft defines qualifiers.
>
>> Neither option is very attractive, I must admit.
> Fortunately, I don't think it impacts the goal of TPE.  The DNT signal
> is still being sent to those resources, and the user still expects that
> their activity within other contexts won't be retained (even by accident).
> A legitimate compliance regime can be expected to address such mistakes
> with appropriate requirements.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 09:50:35 UTC

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