- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:59:46 +0100
- To: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Amy Colando <acolando@microsoft.com>
Kimon, good argument. So it needs a different spin. My goal was not to claim compliance, but to write the Specification in a way that makes compliance easier for those services. This means we have to think about the relation between our definition and the data controller definition that everybody is/will working with. This avoids having to do the work twice within your service. Isn't that a goal worth considering? Rigo On Wednesday 22 February 2012 08:49:57 Kimon Zorbas wrote: > Rigo, I fully understand where you come from. But whether DNT can be a > compliance solution depends on facts and (unfortunately) not on our (W3C) > statements. In other words, DNT might be accepted as providing compliance > in some cases and in some countries but not in other. If we state clear > terms, publishers and others might be mislead and rely on W3C statements > and I guess we don't want W3C to take on such role (and liability). > > Makes sense?
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 09:00:15 UTC