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

Re: Call for feedback on hybrid URI/header proposal

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:39:25 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <56C3722B-E402-482A-8614-5474212D02CF@apple.com>
To: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>

On Jul 7, 2012, at 6:14 , Matthias Schunter wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> fyi: The agreement in Bellevue on this discussion was that our main goal
> is to communicate to what extent a site claims compliance with the
> standard.  I.e., it indicates what piece of the compliance doc a site
> claims to implement (e.g., 1st party or 3rd party rules).
> 
> However, to allow a site to indicate that it does not do any tracking,
> we added a "no-tracking" return value. For this one, we now have to
> define conditions that are sufficient to claim this flag.

This is all fine information to know, but there are other important pieces of information that the UA/user deserves to know as well.  did you get the signal I sent?  are you acting on it, or claiming out-of-band exception, or the like?

knowing that IF the site receives my DNT:1 signal, THEN it claims compliance, actually tells me very little about what's actually happening.  It can be compliant and claim permissions, claim out-of-band exception…and it might not have got what I thought I sent at all.



> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> 
> 
> On 19/06/2012 20:00, David Singer wrote:
>> I remain concerned that the current text doesn't make it easy to determine "does this server think it is allowed to track me, i.e. might it be tracking me if it wishes?"
>> 
>> It currently allows me to determine "is this a 1st party?" which is only one of four cases:
>> * 1st party
>> * 3rd party that didn't see a DNT request (maybe it got deleted in transit)
>> * 3rd party that thinks it saw DNT:0
>> * 3rd party that thinks it has an out-of-band exception
>> 
>> 
>> On May 14, 2012, at 14:23 , Matthias Schunter wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'd like to re-emphasize my call for feedback on the URI/header proposal
>>> (TPE spec; chapter 5).
>>> 
>>> The feedback needed (in decreasing order of preference):
>>> 1. Concrete text proposals enhancing/improving the current draft
>>> 2. Concrete requirements & use cases that are not met by the current spec
>>> 3. Other concrete comments on the drafts
>>> 
>>> If you do not comment on the current proposal, I will interpret silence
>>> as agreement ;-)
>>> 
>>> If you need more information / explanation, feel free to ping me.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> matthias
>>> 
>>> 
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 01:39:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:52 UTC