All of these closings are fine with me, with a couple of qualifiers below. I think these open discussions are already covered by other issues, but just wanted to note them here. On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote: > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/84 > ISSUE-84: Make DNT status available to JavaScript > RESOLUTION: > - Revised text in section 4.3.3 We still have ISSUE-116 about the exact meaning of the doNotTrack property. I have an open action item as my suggested resolution differs from Roy's updates to the editor's draft. > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/107 > ISSUE-107: Exact format of the response header? > RESOLUTION: > - Revised response header values in Section 5.2 and syntax in 5.3 We still have ISSUE-137 about the possibility of a "service provider" flag, which I think is an open question of debate. (There's also the question of whether permitted use qualifiers would be possible in the format of the response header. I believe the consensus in Bellevue which we're currently reviewing is that we would make permitted use qualifiers optional for the tracking status resource and so we wouldn't necessarily need to change the format of the response header.) Thanks, Nick
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2012 01:43:54 UTC