- From: CVS User rfieldin <cvsmail@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 23:25:22 +0000
- To: public-tracking-commit@w3.org
Update of /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts
In directory gil:/tmp/cvs-serv7262
Modified Files:
tracking-dnt.html
Log Message:
(editorial) changes proposed by chairs, mostly removal of issue and note boxes
--- /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html 2014/03/13 07:19:57 1.244
+++ /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html 2014/03/24 23:25:22 1.245
@@ -177,12 +177,6 @@
<em title="optional" class="rfc2119">optional</em> in this
specification are to be interpreted as described in [[!RFC2119]].
</p>
- <p class="issue" data-number="136" title="Resolve dependencies of the TPE on the compliance specification">
- <b>[OPEN]</b> This draft removes all dependencies on TCS.
- </p>
- <p class="issue" data-number="141" title="Do a review according to qaframe-spec">
- <b>[POSTPONED]</b>
- </p>
</section>
<section id='notation'>
@@ -288,12 +282,6 @@
has been obtained and recorded using the mechanisms defined in
<a href="#exceptions" class="sectionRef"></a>.
</p>
- <p class="issue" data-number="217" title="Terminology for user action, interaction, and network interaction">
- <b>[OPEN]</b> Waiting on result from call for objections.
- </p>
- <p class="issue" data-number="228" title="Revise the Network Interaction definition">
- <b>[OPEN]</b> Waiting on result from call for objections.
- </p>
</section>
</section>
@@ -507,16 +495,9 @@
when enabled, designers of future extensions ought to use as few
extension characters as possible.
</p>
- <p class="note">This document does not have any implied or specified
- behavior for the user agent treatment of cookies when DNT is enabled.
- </p>
<p class="note">At most one DNT header can be present in a valid HTTP
request [[!HTTP]].
</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'>
@@ -1127,9 +1108,6 @@
<dfn>compliance</dfn> = %x22 "compliance" %x22
<dfn>compliance-v</dfn> = array-of-refs
</pre>
- <p class="issue" data-number="242" title="URL Management for compliance regime URLs">
- <b>[POSTPONED]</b>
- </p>
</section>
<section id='rep.qualifiers'>
@@ -1520,14 +1498,7 @@
will deem consent to exist even after the exception has been
revoked.
</p>
- <p class="note">
- The requirement for the site to determine the user's intention is new;
- previously the site was required to inform, but the final
- determination of intention was the responsibility of the UA. This
- version removes that split of user-determination, and leaves it
- solely with the site.
- </p>
- </section>
+ </section>
<section>
<h3>Processing Model</h3>
<p>
@@ -1613,23 +1584,9 @@
<li>A has the form '*.domain' and X is 'domain' or is of the
form 'string.domain', where 'string' is any sequence of characters.</li>
</ul>
- <p>In addition, responses to the JavaScript API indicated should be consistent
- with this user preference (see below).</p>
-
- <p class="note">
- The prior version of this required that the UA "somehow confirms with the
- user that they agree to the grant of exception, if not already granted"
- </p>
-
-
- <p class="issue" data-number="159" title="How do we allow sites that mash-in ad-supported content to maintain their own trusted third parties?">
- [POSTPONED] This model does not support mashed-up content which is
- in turn supported by ads; it's not clear how to distinguish
- between embedded advertising for the current page (intended for
- this top-level origin) and embedded content and advertising that
- is transcluded from some other document origin.<br />
- <b>Proposal</b>: For this version of the specification, we don't
- address this corner case.
+ <p>
+ In addition, responses to the JavaScript API indicated should be
+ consistent with this user preference (see below).
</p>
<p>
User-agents MUST handle each API request as a 'unit', granting
@@ -1641,7 +1598,6 @@
operational integrity is treated as a unit. Each separate call
to an API is a separate unit.
</p>
- <div class="note">
<p>
It is left up to individual user agent implementations how to
determine and how and whether to store users' tracking
@@ -1661,7 +1617,6 @@
a stored exception for all third-parties that are, or will be, embedded
on the indicated the top-level origin.
</p>
- </div>
</section>
</section>
@@ -1746,7 +1701,8 @@
one level below TLD.
</p>
- <p class="note">For example, <em>www.foo.bar.example.com</em> may set the
+ <p>
+ For example, <em>www.foo.bar.example.com</em> may set the
domain parameter as as <code>"bar.example.com"</code> or
<code>"example.com"</code>, but not to <code>"something.else.example.com"</code>
or <code>"com"</code>.
@@ -1780,14 +1736,6 @@
header — is only valid immediately, and users may choose to
edit the list of stored exceptions and revoke some or all of them.
</p>
- <p class="note">
- The prior version of this call was asynchronous with a call-back; the change
- to require the site to determine the user's wishes, rather than the UA,
- enabled this to become synchronous. This is simpler; the user agent may
- still ask for the user's approval. Sites wishing to know whether an
- exception stands, or the DNT header that they would receive,
- should call the appropriate enquiry API.
- </p>
</section>
<section id="exceptions-javascript-api-cancel">
@@ -1827,7 +1775,7 @@
the indicated grant(s); if some kind of processing error occurred then
an appropriate exception will be thrown.
</p>
- <p class="note">
+ <p>
If there are no matching duplets in the database of remembered
grants when the method is called then this operation does nothing
(and does not throw an exception).
@@ -1939,10 +1887,6 @@
This API requests the addition of a
web-wide grant for a specific site, to the database.
</p>
- <p class="note">
- As above, this call used to be asynchronous, and the change to the UI
- enabled it to be synchronous.
- </p>
</section>
<section id="exceptions-javascript-api-ww-cancel">
@@ -2006,7 +1950,7 @@
<p>Furthermore, the named third party receiving the DNT:0 header acquires at
least the right to collect data and process it for the given interaction and
- any secondary use unless it receives a DNT:1 header from that particular
+ any other use unless it receives a DNT:1 header from that particular
identified user agent.</p>
<p>The named third party is also allowed to transmit the collected data for
@@ -2119,9 +2063,6 @@
user and getting their consent, and is also able to call the
Javascript API when it is granted.</p>
- <p class="note">Depending on the resolution of options for the
- User-Granted Exceptions section, this language might need to be
- updated to correspond.</p>
</section>
<section id="exceptions-when-not-enabled">
@@ -2174,10 +2115,6 @@
their mind, and allow the store to proceed but then later ask it be
removed, or even by denying the storage in the first place.
</p>
- <p class="note">The use of the word 'exception' both to describe
- the user granting something, and for a problem in Javascript, is
- an unfortunate clash here.
- </p>
<p>Sites can call the 'Confirm' APIs to enquire whether a specific
exception has been granted and stands in the user agent. This is the call
Received on Monday, 24 March 2014 23:25:23 UTC