Re: Proposed version of the final TPE Note we plan to publish

Hi Roy/Rob,

I am fine with Roy's proposed text and not updating the CR draft (i.e.
not including the updated reference).

Roy: Could you do the edits and then we will ask the WG whether the
revised proposal is acceptable to everyone.

Regards,
matthias

Am 29.10.2018 um 14:01 schrieb Rob van Eijk:
> I think the reference in the introduction to KnowPrivacy is outdated.
> 
>  
> 
> I suggest a different reference, e.g.,
> 
>  
> 
> Bujlow, T., Carela-Español, V., Solé-Pareta, J., & Barlet-Ros, P.
> (2017). A survey on web tracking: Mechanisms, implications,
> and defenses. Proceedings of the IEEE, 105(8), 1476–1510.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Suggested edit: A survey of these techniques and their privacy
> implications can be found in [Buljow et. al.]
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rob
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>     -----Original message-----
>     *From:* Roy T. Fielding
>     *Sent:* Friday, October 26 2018, 7:04 pm
>     *To:* Matthias Schunter
>     *Cc:* Jason A. Novak; public-tracking@w3.org
>     (public-tracking@w3.org); Wendy Seltzer
>     *Subject:* Re: Proposed version of the final TPE Note we plan to publish
>      
> 
>     >> On Oct 25, 2018, at 12:40 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>> wrote:
>     >> 
>     >> I think that it is important to spell out the third parties and
>     >> ecosystem since the "normal" sites are not the main bottleneck.
>     >> 
>     >> I had a quick discussion with Jason and we suggest to add:
>     >> 
>     >> "… there has not been sufficient willingness on the part of sites, third
>     >> parties, and the ecosystem at large to adopt the specification nor any
>     >> indications of planned support among user agents for the proposed
>     >> extensions to justify further advancement."
>     >> 
>     >> Any objections to this addition?
> 
>     Reading it again on my laptop, I see that the notion of "willingness"
>     has been introduced here.  Aside from being false in general, it is never
>     a good idea for editors to assume intent when it could just as likely be
>     that the spec might be too poorly written or just not interesting enough
>     for the current context.
> 
>     Instead, I will broaden the part about browsers to include third parties
>     and the ecosystem:
> 
>           Since its last publication as a Candidate Recommendation, there has not
>           been sufficient deployment of these extensions (as defined) to justify
>           further advancement, nor have there been indications of planned support
>           among user agents, third parties, and the ecosystem at large. The
>           working group has therefore decided to conclude its work and republish
>           the final product as this Note, with any future addendums to be
>           published separately.
> 
>     To be clear, "indications of planned support" are important for continuation of work,
>     WG chartering, and such; actual deployment is needed for advancement from CR.
> 
>     ....Roy
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2018 09:16:45 UTC