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

Re: Call for Objections on ISSUE-151

From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:07:46 -0800
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6F5AA8BB-63EB-4455-8442-3DB5ADB26A7D@consumerwatchdog.org>
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Thanks, Justin

I am still unclear of what the current editors' text implies. Does it mean that a browser that cannot handle exceptions is non-compliant and its DNT:1 signal could be ignored?

I have heard this interpretation from some and have heard others say no that is not the case.

I think my proposal (B) that it be OPTIONAL is clear and though I respectfully disagree with Shane's "MUST" language (C), the implication is clear. A DNT:1 signal from a browser that couldn't handle UGE could be ignored.


On Jan 8, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:

> We're announcing the Call for Objections on ISSUE-151 (User Agent Requirement to Handle Exceptions).  Responses are due two weeks from today (January 22); please let me know if you have any questions or detect any errors in the submission form.
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-exception-151/
> (We're postponing the CfO on the related ISSUE-153 until next week per discussion on the call today.  Thanks again for working on these textual proposals!)
> Justin Brookman
> Director, Consumer Privacy
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> tel 202.407.8812
> justin@cdt.org
> http://www.cdt.org
> @JustinBrookman
> @CenDemTech
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 23:08:29 UTC

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