- From: CVS User rfieldin <cvsmail@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 06:52:26 +0000
- To: public-tracking-commit@w3.org
Update of /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts
In directory gil:/tmp/cvs-serv32066
Modified Files:
tracking-dnt.html
Log Message:
add issue markers and editorial note
--- /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html 2013/12/06 00:24:23 1.227
+++ /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html 2013/12/08 06:52:26 1.228
@@ -204,6 +204,17 @@
The term <dfn>user-granted exception</dfn> is used when the user has
permitted tracking by a given third party.
</p>
+ <p class="issue" data-number="5" title="What is the definition of tracking?">
+ [OPEN] Definition of tracking awaiting WG decision following call for objections.
+ </p>
+ <p class="issue" data-number="10" title="What is a first party?">
+ [OPEN] Definitions for party, first party, and third party are
+ awaiting WG decision following call for objections.
+ </p>
+ <p class="issue" data-number="16" title="What does it mean to collect, retain, use and share data?">
+ [OPEN] Definitions for collect, retain, use, and share are
+ awaiting WG decision following call for objections.
+ </p>
</section>
</section>
@@ -428,8 +439,7 @@
</p>
<p class="issue" data-number="176" title="Requirements on intermediaries/isps and header insertion that might affect tracking">[OPEN]</p>
-
- <p class="issue" data-number="153" title="What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them?">[PENDING REVIEW]</p>
+ <p class="issue" data-number="153" title="What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them?">[PENDING REVIEW]</p>
</section>
<section id='js-dom'>
@@ -551,6 +561,13 @@
/ %x55 ; "U" - updated
</pre>
+ <p class="note">
+ [Editorial: The previous values of "1" and "3" to indicate the designated
+ resource complies with first or third party requirements,
+ respectively, have been removed because they are dependent on a
+ specific compliance regime. They can still be communicated via the
+ qualifiers.]
+ </p>
<p class="issue" data-number="137" title="Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s)">
<b>[PENDING REVIEW]</b> No, in practice there may be dozens of
service providers on any given request. If the designated resource
@@ -979,6 +996,9 @@
<dfn>compliance-v</dfn> = array-of-refs
</pre>
</div>
+ <p class="issue" data-number="239" title="Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference?">
+ [RAISED] Text above is proposed resolution.
+ </p>
<p>
An origin server MAY send a <code><a>status-object</a></code>
member named <code><a>qualifiers</a></code> with a string value
@@ -1056,6 +1076,18 @@
<dfn>same-party</dfn> = %x22 "same-party" %x22
<dfn>same-party-v</dfn> = array-of-refs
</pre>
+ <p class="issue" data-number="164" title="To what extent should the same-party attribute of tracking status resource be required?">
+ [OPEN] 3 Alternatives - text is needed:<br/>
+ (A) Current draft: Resource is optional<br/>
+ (B) Alternative proposal 1: If multiple domains on a page belong
+ to the same party, then this fact SHOULD be declared using the
+ same-party attribute<br/>
+ (C) Alternative proposal 2: State that
+ user agents MAY assume that additional elements that are hosted
+ under a different URL and occur on a page and declare "intended
+ for 1st party use" are malicious unless this URL is listed in the
+ "same-party" attribute
+ </p>
<p>
An origin server MAY send a member named
<code><a>audit</a></code> with an array value containing a list of
@@ -1142,17 +1174,6 @@
<dfn>null</dfn> = <null, as defined in [[!RFC4627]]>
</pre>
- <p class="issue" data-number="164" title="To what extent should the same-party attribute of tracking status resource be required?">
- [OPEN] 3 Alternatives - text is needed:<br/>
- (A) Current draft: Resource is optional<br/>
- (B) Alternative proposal 1: If multiple domains on a page belong to the
- same party, then this fact SHOULD be declared using the
- same-party attribute<br/>
- (C) Alternative proposal 2: State that user agents MAY assume that
- additional elements that are hosted under a different URL and occur
- on a page and declare "intended for 1st party use" are malicious unless
- this URL is listed in the "same-party" attribute
- </p>
</section>
<section id='status-checks-not-tracked'>
Received on Sunday, 8 December 2013 06:52:27 UTC