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

Re: existing text on ISSUE-151

From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:21:50 -0800
Cc: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A3A6D1BD-49FA-4BE5-BA42-07D62526CD7B@w3.org>
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Hi John,

I've tried to clarify what I believe to be the interpretation of the current editors' draft text on past calls and in past email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Nov/0088.html

In short, the current editors' draft text does not mark the feature as optional, so in order for a user agent to fully implement the TPE, that UA would need to implement this JavaScript API. I believe those who would prefer for this feature to be optional for user agent implementers prefer the change proposal (supported by you) that explicitly marks the feature as optional.

That is an entirely separate question from whether a DNT signal can or should be ignored. The TPE says nothing about conditions for ignoring a DNT signal, except to provide a syntax to signal when a server is disregarding a preference. The specs are written with the expectation of voluntary adoption; there is nothing we write that can compel a server to implement the spec for any or all requests or to compel a browser to implement any or all features of the spec.

Hope this helps,
Nick

On January 8, 2014, at 3:07 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Can 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Sunday, 12 January 2014 00:22:06 UTC

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