- From: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:17:21 +0200
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Team, in DC, we currently have the resolution of ISSUE-111, ISSUE-124, and ISSUE-130 on our radar. Please drop me a line if there are other complex ISSUES that we should tackle. Below, I summarised what I believed to be the latest input for these discussions as a means to facilitate preparation for DC. The latest TPE can be found here: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html Feel free to comment/add if I accidentially misstated or overlooked some information. Regards, matthias ---8<------ ISSUE-130: Header or well-known URI or both? ----- Goal: - A site wants to inform a user agent about its DNT practices. This includes (but is not limited to) information on - Whether the site is intended for 1st or 3rd party use - Whether it claims to follow DNT compliance - Whether it believes that it has received an exception for a given user agent Status: - The current draft contains a well-known URI proposal (Section 5.1) and a header proposal (Section 5.2) that are positioned as alternatives - Tom Lowenthal is working on a hybrid that will combine both [Gentle reminder to tom ;-)] - This hybrid is expected to be the basis for our discussion. Questions: - What is the best approach to satisfy the criteria put forward in this wiki? http://www.w3.org/wiki/DntResponseHeaderOrURI ---8<------ ISSUE-124 and ISSUE-112, ISSUE-113: Site-specific Exceptions ----- Goal: - If a user has a preference not to be tracked (DNT;1) and visits a site, this site shall be enabled to ask for an exemption from the need to comply with our compliance spec Status: - The current draft (Section 6) provides a Javascript API that allows to grant exceptions to a) A list of specified third parties on the given site b) A blanked exception to any "*" third party for this given site - The current draft does not allow web-wide exceptions (ISSUE-113) that would be needed to make some widgets work globally on all sites - While there was concern that lists of pairs {(thirdparty, site), ...} may be hard to handle, I did not see strong objections to having them. Questions: - Are there strong objections to the current draft (ideally with text)? - Should we add web-wide exceptions (thirdparty, *) that allows a third party element to work on all sites? - How are sub-domains handled? ---8<------ ISSUE-111: Request header revisited ----- Goal: - Inform a site about the current DNT choices stored by a user agent Status: - Current draft (Section 4.1) specifies DNT;0 permitting a site to track and DNT;1 expressing a preference not to be tracked - Potential additional values were suggested to express, e.g.,: - There is a global exception ("*") for your site - There are no exceptions for your site - There is an exception for you and some third parties Questions: - What information on tracking status and exception does a site need? - How to encode this information.
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 10:17:52 UTC