W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > August 2012

SUMMARY: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20]

From: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:56:18 +0200
Message-ID: <50387712.30308@schunter.org>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Team,


the information I've extracted from the discussion stream looks as follows:
- ISSUE 112 (How are subdomains handled) should not be closed

The following Issue is not affected by this batch closing:
- ISSUE-152: User Agent Compliance: feedback for out-of-bound consent

As a consequence (unless someone points me to messages that I've
overlooked), I will close the other  issues below.

CONGRATULATIONS! This has brought us a large step closer towards closing
the remaining issues on the TPE document!

Regards,
 matthias

On 15/08/2012 18:16, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
>
> in preparation for tomorrow's TPE call, I started assessing the status
> of our TPE-related ISSUES:
>
> I'd like to thank Roy and David for preparing the next major revision
> of the TPE spec! They have performed a huge push towards implementing
> all our prior discussions and draft agreements as updates to the TPE
> spec. As a consequence, many of our informal agreements are now
> documented in the text and we have the opportunity to make a large
> leap towards closing the remaining TPE issues.
>
> Enclosed is a list of issues that I believe satisfy the following
> criteria:
>    - Have been discussed before
>    - Proposed text is in TPE spec
>    - I believe that all participants can live with the current text
>
> I would like to double-check that my perception is correct and then
> close these issues.
>
> PLEASE:
> - Double check that you can live with the proposed resolution and the
> current corresponding text in the TPE
> - Send any comments and clarifying questions to the mailing list
> - Send a note if you cannot live with one of the proposed resolutions
> to the chairs and editors at:
>   team-tracking-editors@w3.org [In this case, some of the issues will
> be discussed further]
>
> DEADLINE: August 20
> - If I do not get further input on any of the issues below, I plan to
> close them by August 20
>
>
> Regards,
> matthias
>
> -----------------------------------------8>--- ISSUES to be closed +
> proposed Resolutions ---------------------
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/47
> ISSUE-47: Should the response from the server indicate a policy that
> describes the DNT practices of the server?
> RESOLUTION:
> - A policy attribute at the well-known URI may point to a site-wide
> policy (Section 5.4.1)
> - The response header may identify a more specific policy at a
> different URL (Section 5.3.2)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/61
> ISSUE-61: A site could publish a list of the other domains that are
> associated with them
> RESOLUTION:
> - "partners" attribute at the well-known URI identifies partner sites
> (Section 5.4.1)
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
> ISSUE-112: How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions?
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112>
> RESOLUTION:
> - Exceptions are granted for fully qualified domain names (Section 6.3.1)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124
> How shall we express responses from a site to a user agent (headers,
> URIs, ...)? <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124>
> RESOLUTION:
> - Well-known URI + Headers where the essential information needs to be
> provided with one of the mechanisms
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/128
> ISSUE-128: HTTP error status code to signal that tracking is required?
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/128>
> RESOLUTION:
> - "409" ;-)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/130
> ISSUE-130: User-granted Exceptions b) Web-wide Exception for Third
> Parties (thisthirdparty, anywhere)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/130>
> RESOLUTION:
> - We agreed that web-wide exceptions shall be possible. Text in
> Section 6.5
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/155
> ISSUE-155: Remove the received member from tracking status
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/155>
> RESOLUTION:
> - Removed attribute has been removed
>   since we assume reliable communication
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2012 06:56:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:54 UTC