Friday, 30 March 2012
- We have a host in DC. (Re: Washingon F2F details?)
- Washingon F2F details?
- Re: Article: Yahoo! Launches Global Support for Do Not Track (Yahoo! Policy Blog)
- RE: Article: Yahoo! Launches Global Support for Do Not Track (Yahoo! Policy Blog)
Thursday, 29 March 2012
- Re: Article: Yahoo! Launches Global Support for Do Not Track (Yahoo! Policy Blog)
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- RE: Article: Yahoo! Launches Global Support for Do Not Track (Yahoo! Policy Blog)
- RE: Article: Yahoo! Launches Global Support for Do Not Track (Yahoo! Policy Blog)
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- RE: Article: Yahoo! Launches Global Support for Do Not Track (Yahoo! Policy Blog)
- Article: Yahoo! Launches Global Support for Do Not Track (Yahoo! Policy Blog)
- RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: Issue Maintenance
- RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- ISSUE-111 - requestSiteSpecificTrackingException
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: ISSUE-130: Web-wide exceptions - iare there objections to permitting those?
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- ISSUE-130: Web-wide exceptions - iare there objections to permitting those?
- ISSUE-129: What are the concerns/issues with blanked exceptions
- Revised template for parties and business uses
- RE: My summary of ISSUE-111 and ISSUE-129 and ISSUE-130 - Input for TPE part of today's telco
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: on negotiating site exceptions (was Re: Work ahead; volunteers?)
- RE: on negotiating site exceptions (was Re: Work ahead; volunteers?)
- RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: Issue Maintenance
- Issue Maintenance
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- My summary of ISSUE-111 and ISSUE-129 and ISSUE-130 - Input for TPE part of today's telco
- My summary of ISSUE-111 and ISSUE-129 and ISSUE-130 - Input for TPE part of today's telco
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- template for parties and business uses
- RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: on negotiating site exceptions (was Re: Work ahead; volunteers?)
- RE: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
- Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- on negotiating site exceptions (was Re: Work ahead; volunteers?)
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- apologies for a rash of catch-up messages coming from me...
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Are blanked exceptions usable in the EU? [ISSUE-129]
- Mar-28 call (was Re: Agenda for 2012-Mar-27 call)
- (Issue - 21) Enable External Audit of DNT Compliance
- Agenda for 2012-Mar-27 call
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
- RE: ISSUE-125: Finding out whether a user agent supports DNT
- RE: ISSUE-125: Finding out whether a user agent supports DNT
Monday, 26 March 2012
- Re: ISSUE-125: Finding out whether a user agent supports DNT
- Re: ISSUE-125: Finding out whether a user agent supports DNT
- RE: Are blanked exceptions usable in the EU? [ISSUE-129]
- Re: Are blanked exceptions usable in the EU? [ISSUE-129]
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Are blanked exceptions usable in the EU? [ISSUE-129]
- Re: Are blanked exceptions usable in the EU? [ISSUE-129]
- ISSUE-111: Starting sub-discussions on global exceptions (thisthirdparty, on all sites [ISSUE-130]) and wildcard exceptions (anythirdparty, on a given site; ISSUE-129])
- Are blanked exceptions usable in the EU? [ISSUE-129]
- tracking-ISSUE-130: Site-specific Exceptions b) Global Exception for Third Parties (thisthirdparty, anywhere) [refining ISSUE-111] [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
- tracking-ISSUE-129: Site-specific Exceptions a) Blanket Exceptions (mysite, any-third party) [refining ISSUE-111] [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
Sunday, 25 March 2012
- ISSUE-125: Finding out whether a user agent supports DNT
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
Friday, 23 March 2012
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
- RE: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111)
- RE: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
- RE: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
Thursday, 22 March 2012
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
- Re: [Action-106][Issue-32] Sharing of data between entities via cookie syncing / identity brokering
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111)
- RE: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111)
- RE: [Action-106][Issue-32] Sharing of data between entities via cookie syncing / identity brokering
- RE: [Action-106][Issue-32] Sharing of data between entities via cookie syncing / identity brokering
- RE: [Action-106][Issue-32] Sharing of data between entities via cookie syncing / identity brokering
- Re: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111)
- Re: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111)
- Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111)
- RE: [Action-106][Issue-32] Sharing of data between entities via cookie syncing / identity brokering
- Re: [Action-106][Issue-32] Sharing of data between entities via cookie syncing / identity brokering
- RE: [Action-106][Issue-32] Sharing of data between entities via cookie syncing / identity brokering
- Agenda for 2012-Mar-21 call
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
Monday, 19 March 2012
- Re: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- RE: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed
Thursday, 15 March 2012
Sunday, 18 March 2012
- RE: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- Re: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- RE: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- Re: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- Re: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- RE: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
Friday, 16 March 2012
Sunday, 18 March 2012
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
Saturday, 17 March 2012
- Re: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- Re: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
Friday, 16 March 2012
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
Thursday, 15 March 2012
- RE: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception
- Re: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- RE: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
- Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception
- RE: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception
- Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception
- RE: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception
- Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- RE: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- RE: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- RE: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US])
- Best Practices for Outsourcing (ACTION-47, ISSUE-49)
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
- Re: Out-of-Band Consent Standard (ISSUE-65)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
- Re: Out-of-Band Consent Standard (ISSUE-65)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
- Re: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- RE: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)
- RE: Out-of-Band Consent Standard (ISSUE-65)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- RE: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US])
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US])
- RE: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US])
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US])
- Re: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- Re: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- Re: Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- Proportionate Response for Fraud Prevention and Security (ISSUE-24)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- RE: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Parties and First Party vs. Third Party (ISSUE-10)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Out-of-Band Consent Standard (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- RE: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
- Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US]
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
Monday, 12 March 2012
- Time zones and the Wednesday call
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Friday, 9 March 2012
- Publication of Second Public Working Drafts
- RE: JS Exception API
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Data mining as a means to protect privacy in social networks
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: JS Exception API
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
Thursday, 8 March 2012
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: JS Exception API
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: JS Exception API
- RE: Work ahead; volunteers?
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Fraud Prevention (ISSUE-24)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- RE: Defining Collection (ISSUE-16)
- Re: Defining Collection (ISSUE-16)
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
- Re: Defining Collection (ISSUE-16)
- RE: Defining Collection (ISSUE-16)
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- RE: Defining Collection (ISSUE-16)
- Re: Defining Collection (ISSUE-16)
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- RE: Defining Collection (ISSUE-16)
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Defining Collection (ISSUE-16)
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- SF Chronicle article on tracking, FYI
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- reminder: acknowledgements
- RE: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: ISSUE-115: was ACTION-141
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken
- ISSUE-128: HTTP error status code to signal that tracking is required?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: ISSUE-115: was ACTION-141
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: ISSUE-115: was ACTION-141
- RE: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: ISSUE-115: was ACTION-141
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: JS Exception API
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- minor tweak to compliance spec to fix headings
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- RE: JS Exception API
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- ACTION-116 ISSUE-123 Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Action 93: Explaining reasoning for requesting a site-specific exemption
- Re: ISSUE-115: was ACTION-141
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed
- Re: JS Exception API
- Re: Work ahead; volunteers?
- Re: Work ahead; volunteers?
- issue-14: updated proposed text
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: set of exceptions
- RE: set of exceptions
- RE: JS Exception API
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed
- RE: Work ahead; volunteers?
- RE: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: JS Exception API [ISSUE-112]
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: JS Exception API
- Re: JS Exception API [ISSUE-112]
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: set of exceptions
- Re: JS Exception API
- Re: JS Exception API
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- RE: JS Exception API
- RE: JS Exception API
- RE: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- RE: JS Exception API
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed
- Re: Work ahead; volunteers?
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- RE: Work ahead; volunteers?
- RE: Work ahead; volunteers?
- Re: JS Exception API
- Re: JS Exception API
- RE: Work ahead; volunteers?
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed
- Re: Work ahead; volunteers?
- Re: JS Exception API [ISSUE-111], [ISSUE-112]
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed
- Re: JS Exception API
- RE: Work ahead; volunteers?
- RE: Work ahead; volunteers?
- Agenda for 2012-Mar-07 call
- How can a server understand the site-specific exceptions that are stored in a user agent (was: Work ahead; volunteers?)
- RE: Work ahead; volunteers?
- TPE: Work ahead; volunteers?
- checkin notes
- Issue Cleanup for TPE Document
- RE: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- RE: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- RE: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
Monday, 5 March 2012
- RE: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80]
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80]
- RE: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80]
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80]
- Re: Well-known URI vs response headers? [ISSUE-81, ISSUE-47, ISSUE-80]
- RE: RE: JS Exception API
- RE: RE: JS Exception API
- Re: Issue-5 (What is Tracking?
- Issue-5 (What is Tracking?
- RE: ISSUE-115: was ACTION-141
- Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- Re: Action-101; language for issue-6 for TCS spec
- Re: Action-101; language for issue-6 for TCS spec
- ISSUE-115: was ACTION-141
- Re: ACTION-141: Draft text on DNT Expressing a Tracking Preference
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: Action 93: Explaining reasoning for requesting a site-specific exemption
- RE: ACTION-141: Draft text on DNT Expressing a Tracking Preference
- Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?
- ACTION-141: Draft text on DNT Expressing a Tracking Preference
Sunday, 4 March 2012
Saturday, 3 March 2012
Friday, 2 March 2012
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Friday, 2 March 2012
Thursday, 1 March 2012
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- RE: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- RE: JS Exception API
- RE: JS Exception API [ISSUE-111], [ISSUE-112]
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- RE: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- RE: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- RE: JS Exception API
- RE: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- RE: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- RE: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- RE: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- RE: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties
- Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties