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

Re: ACTION 124

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>
Message-ID: <1342177.DHmBbNhYe1@hegel.sophia.w3.org>

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?


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:34 UTC