- From: CVS User npdoty <cvsmail@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:46:23 +0000
- To: public-tracking-commit@w3.org
Update of /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts
In directory gil:/var/tmp/cvs-serv55283
Modified Files:
tracking-compliance.html
Log Message:
removing issue boxes and editorial notes no longer needed
--- /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html 2015/04/28 00:43:10 1.148
+++ /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html 2015/04/28 00:46:22 1.149
@@ -104,13 +104,6 @@
network interaction. For example, the contextual customization of ads shown
as part of the same network interaction is not restricted by a
<code>DNT:1</code> signal.</p>
-
- <p class="issue" data-number="134" title=
- "Would we additionally permit logs that are retained for a short enough period?">
- </p>
-
- <p class="issue" data-number="209" title=
- "Description of scope of specification"></p>
</section>
<section id="definitions">
@@ -129,13 +122,6 @@
programs capable of initiating HTTP requests, including but not limited
to browsers, spiders (web-based robots), command-line tools, native
applications, and mobile apps [[!RFC7230]].</p>
-
- <p class="issue" data-number="227" title=
- "User Agent requirements in UA Compliance vs. Scope section">There is a
- proposal to move a sentence about user agents from the Introduction/Scope
- section to this section. We might also include a reference here to the
- conformance requirements on user agents in the companion TPE
- specification.</p>
</section>
<section id="network-interaction">
@@ -425,11 +411,6 @@
<p>A first party to a given user action MAY elect to follow the rules
defined under this specification for third parties.</p>
-
- <p class="note">Given WG decision on ISSUE-241, how should a first party
- to an action indicate to the user that it is electing to follow
- third-party rules? Should we suggest using "N" or some other tracking
- status code?</p>
</section>
<section id="third-party-compliance">
@@ -532,9 +513,6 @@
period for that permitted use has expired. After there are no
remaining permitted uses for given data, the data MUST be deleted or
<a>permanently de-identified</a>.</p>
-
- <p class="issue" data-number="199" title=
- "Limitations on the use of unique identifiers"></p>
</section>
<section id="no-personalization">
@@ -559,10 +537,6 @@
<section id="permitted-uses">
<h3>Permitted Uses</h3>
- <p class="issue" data-number="211" title=
- "Should we specify retention periods (extended with transparency) for permitted uses?">
- </p>
-
<section id="frequency-capping">
<h4>Frequency Capping</h4>
@@ -686,11 +660,6 @@
conforms to any corresponding requirements. Where qualifiers are
present, a party MUST indicate all claimed permitted uses.</p>
- <p class="note">The qualifiers in this table correspond directly to the
- permitted uses described in the previous section. This list, the
- characters and the names may change depending on the resolution of open
- issues regarding the permitted uses.</p>
-
<aside class="example">
<p>A site that tracks user activity across several unrelated sites
(through a tracking pixel or embedded script, for example) but
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 00:46:24 UTC