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

Re: Issue 240 - definition of "context" | alternative proposal

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:38:21 +0100
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2c937dcd952d704fde116c45a2946485@xs4all.nl>

I think that in case Tracking gets ported to the TPE it does not matter 
what the status is i.e., formal or not formal. The key here is that 
context at the moment is a fundamental element of the tracking 
definition and can therefore not be left open.


David Singer schreef op 2014-01-23 01:22:
> I think that, in the case that the term ‘tracking’ is (a) not used in
> any formal way by the TPE, but only to label things and (b) the
> definition relies on a term which is both undefined and ambiguous, we
> should question whether a formal definition is needed or appropriate
> in the TPE.
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 4:20 , Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net> wrote:
>> Hi Nick, et. al,
>> Question: do we really need to define the word "context" in this 
>> document? Or would it be better to leave it to compliance regimes to 
>> define context in their respective compliance documents? I tend to 
>> think it's better to leave such definitions out of the TPE, and 
>> address them in the compliance docs, if necessary.
>> I'd like to submit this as an alternative proposal: that we not define 
>> "context" in the TPE.  Of course, I'm open to feedback and look 
>> forward to a healthy discussion if necessary.
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>> Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | 
>> Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 08:38:55 UTC

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