- From: Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:42:18 -0700
- To: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "publ >> \"public-tracking@w3.org\"" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Hi Matthias, I don't think we reached agreement on antivirus, at least according to Aleecia's summary: > Implication B: AVG, as an anti-virus package and much more, may or may not count as a users' expression of privacy. We are still discussing this which leads to... > > (2) Today we did not agree what threshold "counts" for a user expressing a privacy preference while selecting a user agent. We heard a variety of views and thresholds proposed. The conversation ended with: > Action item on Ian to write text with his proposal (action-212) > Action item on Justin to write text with his proposal (action-211) thanks, Lee On Jun 17, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Matthias Schunter wrote: > Hi Rigo, > > > after being underwater while changing jobs, I finally read the current spec. > > I have finally read the spec and I believe that > a) Our agreement (ISSUE-4) is correctly reflected in the spec albeit > the current language could benefit > from further editorial improvements to enhance clarity. > b) That the well-known URI / response headers need discussion and > improvements and that this discussion is not yet over. > Roy had the mission to merge response headers into his proposal > (what he did) and the result needs more polishing. > > Since I believe that we all agree that a default can be an expression of > preference (e.g., if I install a privacy-enhanced browser that is > permitted to ship with DNT;1 as default), feel free to indicate text > updates to clarify the text to fully communicate this agreement. We also > agreed that installing general-purpose tools (browser, OS, antivirus, > ...) is not such a declaration of prefefence and thus those tools must > not ship with DNT on (e.g., DNT;1). However, they may enable DNT by > asking their user during installation. > > > Regards, > matthias > > > On 04/06/2012 11:34, Rigo Wenning wrote: >> Your edits do NOT reflect the text in Aleecia's mail you claim to implement. >> I object to those edits. >> >> Rigo >> >> On Monday 04 June 2012 01:37:07 Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>> On Jun 2, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>>> I have heard that at least some people seem to think the current >>>> TPE spec is unclear about the no-header-by-default protocol >>>> requirement, mostly because the same section focuses on intermediaries. >>>> I intend to fix that as an editorial concern. Please feel free >>>> to send suggested text to the mailing list. >>> I have added text based on Aleecia's original proposal that was >>> reviewed in Santa Clara (IIRC), slightly modified to reflect the >>> three alternatives (unset, on, off) we agreed upon and to fit >>> within the determining/expressing/multiple-mechanisms order of >>> the current spec. >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2012Jun/0000.ht >>> ml >>> >>> ....Roy > > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:42:48 UTC