Re: [comment] Names and Titles of specifications

I'd like for us to be consistent about whether "Specification" belongs at the end of the two document titles. (I don't see general consistency across W3C spec titles; some end with "Specification" and some don't.)

I think that "Compliance" in the tracking-compliance document doesn't refer to conformance to that specification itself (all specifications have that property) but instead to compliance with the user's expressed tracking preference. "What does it mean to comply with a user's DNT preference?" Read the tracking-compliance document and find out. It might be possible to conform to the specification and still choose to reject the user's preference (and explain why in a response header, say), though maybe that's unnecessarily confusing.

We can change the titles and even shortnames for later drafts, if necessary. I think it's particularly likely that we'll change the titles at some point, as we debate naming within the group, but I'm hoping that the shortnames can remain.

Thanks,
Nick

On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:10 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:

> 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.

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 03:02:16 UTC