- 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