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

Re: Agenda for 06 December 2012 TPE call - V01

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:25:31 -0500
Message-ID: <50BE866B.70901@networkadvertising.org>
To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Matthias,

I want to point out that there is additional proposed text for 
ISSUE-153, which is on the agenda, but the agenda only mentions one 
proposal. There is my own proposal, and then one from Walter.

"A UA that allows or enables other software to alter the DNT setting
MUST ensure that such alteration reflects the user's intent."

And Walter suggested this, which I could accept in lieu of my proposal:

"A UA MUST incorporate detection mechanisms for alteration of
DNT-preferences by third-party software (including third-party
UA-extensions and plugins) and MUST upon detection of such changes
verify with the user that they reflect the user's intentions. The UA MAY
provide the user with the option to ignore future changes in the
DNT-preferences or to automatically change them back to a user-set
preference."


-David


On 12/4/12 9:01 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> V01 of our agenda for tomorrow's call
>
> Regards,
> matthias
>
>
>
> ---------------------------
> Administrative
> ---------------------------
>
> 1. Selection of scribe
>
> ---------------------------
> Old business
> ---------------------------
>
> 2. Review of overdue action items: 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owne 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner>
>    NOTE:
>      - To allow Peter Swire some time to get accomodated, we push the 
> compliance-related actions to Jan 2013
>         (you may do them earlier nevertheless...)
>
> 3.Quick check that callers are identified
>
> ---------------------------
> 4. Revised approach to Exceptions
> ---------------------------
>
> David Singer provided text describing the new approach that was 
> outlined during our last F2F:
> http://www.w3.org/mid/DD4C0887-F30F-42AD-BD75-01AFEEC02968@apple.com>
> I would like to gather feedback and decide whether it is OK to
>  a) put this text in the spec (as an option)
>  b) remove the existing text in the spec (which would make the new 
> text the only option)
>
> ---------------------------
> 5. ISSUES marked PENDING REVIEW
> ---------------------------
>
> Goal:
> - Agree on adding the proposed text (or create action for writing 
> alternative text)
>
> ISSUE-113: How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
>
> On these issues IMHO the status is as follows:
> - If a site-wide exception is requested, all subdomains are 
> automatically included
> - This issue is only relevant for explicit/explicit lists of domains 
> (if the site uses them)
> - An original proposal (from Ian) used cookie-like handling
> - There is a need for wildcards (see note from David Wainberg)
>    and if we agree that wildcards are useful, we should discuss the "how".
>
>
> ISSUE-138: Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138
>     Review non-normative text by Nick and agree that it is OK to put 
> into the spec.
>
> ISSUE-153: What are the implications on software that changes requests 
> but does not necessarily initiate them?
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153
>       Proposed text (by david and nick): "Software outside of the user 
> agent that causes a DNT header to be sent (or modifies existing 
> headers) MUST NOT
>    do so without following the requirements of this section; such 
> software is responsible for assuring the expressed preference reflects 
> the user's intent."
>
> ---------------------------
> 6. ISSUES marked OPEN
> ---------------------------
>
> Goal: review open issues at 
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/2
> and assign actions to them
>
> ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/164
>
> My understanding of the minutes is that we agreed in Amsterdam:
> - keep a MAY (optional)
> - Say that if a site that loads additional content "to be used in 1st 
> party context" (flag: 1)
>    from other domains, this content may not work properly unless this 
> domain is desclared as "same-party"
> - If this approach is still OK, I suggest to create an action to 
> textify it.
>
>
> 6. Announce next meeting & adjourn
>
> ================ Infrastructure =================
>
> Zakim teleconference bridge:
> VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
> Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
> IRC Chat: irc.w3.org <http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt
>
> *****
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 23:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:15 UTC