- From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:10:59 -0500
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I realized that we should have discussed this
at the Working Group F2F, but it occurred to me
that there might be an issue with the names.
Specifically when we publish in TR/ space.
Currently the name of the Editor drafts for the specifications are
# Tracking Definitions specification
Current
Title: Tracking Compliance and Scope Specification
shortname: tracking-compliance
Suggested
Title: Tracking Concepts and Definitions Specification
shortname: tracking-definition
# Tracking HTTP headers specification
Current
Title: Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
shortname: tracking-dnt
Suggested
Title: Tracking Syntax specification
shortname: tracking-syntax
# Rationales
* The conformance (or compliance as currently mentioned in the
specifications) will happen in the two specifications. There
will be MUST, SHOULD, etc keywords in both. Both specification
will have conformance sections. One about syntax formalism,
the other about respecting the header.
* Conformance is usually the term used at W3C for compliance. It
has a precise meaning. I intend to make a review of both specs.
See http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/26
* `tracking-dnt` makes the short name dependent on the header
syntax. We might change our opinions about it in the future and
choose another keyword for a reason or another. I would encourage
to use the word syntax instead, because it is what we are
defining in that specification.
--
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 14:11:22 UTC