- From: Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:08:21 -0700
- To: "Francois Daoust" <fd@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-bpwg-ct" <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Francois, The part that would be "out of scope" (meaning I think that the CT Guidelines will not address specific functions/behaviors in support of it) would be the non-"session settings", i.e. the settings that are statically set for/by the user through out-of-band means. These are not "per session" since they exist before and beyond each session, and through their use the user never needs to be bothered with prompts for the related functions. These are different from the T&C's in that they typically express service features via which the user can personalize the service, and not global conditions beyond any user's control. Best regards, Bryan Sullivan | AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:52 AM To: Sullivan, Bryan Cc: public-bpwg-ct Subject: Re: ACTION-709: Write some examples for 2.5.3 Sullivan, Bryan wrote: > Francois, > Slight modification/addition to your examples: > > The preferences of users and of servers MAY be ascertained by means outside the scope of this document. These means include but are not limited to: > - the use by transforming proxies of a disallow-list of Web sites for which content transformation is known to be useless and/or to break delivered content. > - the use by the transforming proxies of an allow-list of Web sites for which content transformation is known to be necessary. No problem with "disallow-allow". > - user static preferences, e.g. provisioned by their CT service provider or directly by the user through self-care web sites. I'm not sure I understand this one. Are you talking about persistent expression of preferences as listed in 2.5.1? http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guide lines/080313#d0e331 If that's the case, that's not totally out-of-scope. If not, could you clarify? > - terms and conditions of service, as agreed upon between the user and the CT service provider. Agreed.
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 18:09:37 UTC