- From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 18:05:49 -0800
- To: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
On Feb 7, 2012, at 5:39 AM, Matthias Schunter wrote: > I believe that the current header spec covers this case by means of > the header response that says that a resource does not do any tracking > (beyond what might be permitted for third parties under DNT;1). That's not quite my interpretation. I believe the most recently revised response header proposal from Tom [1] uses Tk:1 to indicate compliance with the third-party requirements in the Compliance spec, but doesn't indicate that no identifiable data is retained at all (maybe it's retained for a security/fraud exception, for example). > This corresponds to your text except that your text "except in > aggregated and anonymous form" is now replaced by a pointer to the > compliance spec. I agree that the text should ultimately be replaced by a pointer to the Compliance spec, but I think it should be to the outcome of ISSUE-119, rather than just to third-party compliance. Tk:n would have a distinct meaning from Tk:1, but we can come back to it when we discuss ISSUE-119 rather than right now if that's simpler. Thanks, Nick [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/4F2C6739.8020302@mozilla.com > On 2/1/2012 4:55 PM, Nicholas Doty wrote: >> Instead of dnt-cached: >>> dnt-no-tracking = n >> >> *dnt-no-tracking* indicates that this resource is not used for >> tracking. The resource may or may not be cached but any information >> gained by the server about the user's interaction will not be >> retained, except in aggregated and anonymous form. >> >> This text might instead explicitly refer to the definition of >> "absolutely not tracking" (ISSUE-119) once we have text there. >> >> Thanks, >> Nick
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 02:08:01 UTC