- From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 05:03:24 -0800
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Chairs and editors on the DNT and Compliance specs have agreed to making our checkin notes public, so all interested observers can more readily keep track of what's changed in the documents. Checkin logs will automagically go to a new public dlist, coming soon. This will be strictly optional reading for WG members. If you're deluged enough, you can read the archives when you like, rather than subscribing. The new dlist will just receive checkin notes; any discussion will happen here on public-tracking. Because I've been bad about doing more than a quick one-line checkin note, as my penance, below are my detailed notes about what's in the latest changes to the Compliance spec. This likely is worth skimming this time to make sure you are still comfortable publishing sections 1, 2, and 3. Unless there are objections before or on the Wednesday call, we'll pick up with section 4 and move forward through the rest of the document. So please do look things over, since I will not go through 1-3 section-by-section again: just if and where there are concerns. Aleecia Revision 1.36 notes: Changes made in response to call on 29 Feb. See http://www.w3.org/2012/02/29-dnt-minutes.html for details. Action-121 Fixed "No DNT Signal / No Opt-Out: Treat as DNT" to "Treat as DNT unset"; marked issue-57 & issue-35 as closed in the text and the issue tracker; closed action-121 too. Acknowledgements Copied & pasted from the DNT doc; added contributions list from http://www.doodle.com/z9672cm55hgzvwys (which is certainly incomplete!) Option names I had a hard time keeping this straight in my own head, so I added quick names for the options (e.g. "user expectations" for one of the choices of what a party is defined to be, etc.) If there is any debate over these, I'll go with how the proponents of a given option describe it, in 5 words or fewer. :-) While I was at it, cleaned up the option boxes better to put examples and use cases along with the correct options. Action-124 Per Shane's request, added incomplete text as an alternative proposal for first parties. I'll promote this to pending review once the text is complete (quick test: no trailing off with ...) I know Amy is at IAPP this week; pushed the deadline out. Notes Per Roy, added a note that some participants are concerned the Jonathan/Tom first party proposal is not implementable as it is. If anyone would like to write a very brief (one line is good) parallel note for concerns with the discoverable ownership approach, we'll add that. Added notes on areas that are still open, but have fairly low levels of controversy, as per the last phone conference. Added Shane's multi-party example in a note, since we haven't worked through that and at least Justin thinks it's covered by branding currently. Set v. sequence in "network interaction" -- does anyone object to Roy's suggestion that this be sequence? If not, I suggest we change the text and this is closed. Tracking Added a note from phone discussion. Added Roy's new suggested text, plus the option we not define tracking at all (per Justin / Jonathan). Consent Added option boxes. Tried to figure out what to call these options. Halp? Added note with Roy's concerns. Meaningful Interaction Now "affirmative intention" instead of "affirmatively clicking"; added note that wording is not final *** Revision 1.37 notes: Acknowledgements Somehow failed to check in authors from http://www.doodle.com/z9672cm55hgzvwys (which is certainly incomplete!) in the last checkin. Odd. Fixed now. Introduction Added text explaining white background=closed, blue=options. Added a note that we have yet to address CG comments. Editors, please modify as you see fit. Scope and Goals Modified the note to reflect this section is far from done. Added three short paragraphs as discussed on the call last week. If there's something here that you cannot live with, let's discuss. Otherwise, let's wait until the document takes shape and write the intro close to last. Drafting Notes Commented out prior notes, which felt dated (editors can restore if they wish.) *** Revision 1.38 notes: Content-free checkin - Set lines to 78 characters in length to facilitate diffs - Added [[!TRACKING-DNT]] to x-ref to the DNT document where it was written out instead - Replaced smart quotes - Spell check *** Revision 1.39 notes: Issue-65, added Andy's text as well as an option for not discussing at all (topic: logged in state) Compliance, added a note that the exact wording may change (based on response header or known URL) but the direction is agreed upon. Commented out issue-35 and issue-52 tags, since we have text (that is, no need to call it out by issue number any more) and moved issue-67 and issue-83 down to the end of the section for readability. Issue-95, added a mashup of text from Shane and David (topic: may someone else set DNT for a user?) and noted this is not final text. Set issue-95 to pending review (agree with Jonathan: should not have been closed when we did not have final text, or even any text, in the document. Fixed.) Problem: we appear to have this issue in both documents. We'll need to resolve where it lives. The geo-location section somehow lagged and issue-39 was not updated in the document. As per my summary in "Housekeeping from today's call" on 8 Feb, went ahead and updated the geoloc as agreed, and noted text is not final but direction is agreed upon. I am confused about how the normative text goes with the non-normative text. To me it seems it does not. I went ahead and tacked on a postal code discussion as per the conference call, but it looks rather odd as it is. [Turns out some of this was updated, just not where I thought. I tried to put things back together in sane order. I may have failed, we'll want to walk through this.] Cleaned up the formatting for logged in status, putting option 1 before option 2, and text in blue boxes. Content untouched. Cleaned up the formatting for issue-71, content untouched. Added Rob/Rigo's revised text for issue-14 (EU data processors,) and a note that this may move elsewhere and is pending review.
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 13:03:54 UTC