Issue Maintenance

Hi Team,

I did a pass over our issues and I'd like to suggest some status changes.

As always, please drop me a line if you disagree and/or want to discuss
a proposal.

Without any responses, I will assume that my suggestions reflect
consensus and
will perform the suggested changes.


Regards,
matthias


---------------------------------------------
RAISED -> OPEN
----------------------------------------------

I've opened the following issues:
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/113
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/127
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/128
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/129
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/130

---------------------------------------------
PENDING REVIEW -> OPEN
----------------------------------------------

https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124
 ISSUE-124: How shall we express responses from a site to a user agent
(headers, URIs, ...)?
 Reason: Unless I misinterpreted the description ;-) This issue (what
mechanisms to use for responses)
   was reopened due to Roy's proposal.

---------------------------------------------
PENDING REVIEW -> POSTPONED
----------------------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/61
  ISSUE-61: A site could publish a list of the other domains that are
associated with them
  Reason: Dependency on Compliance Spec

----------------------------------------------
PENDING REVIEW -> CLOSED
----------------------------------------------

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/95
  ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking
preference for a user?
  Reason: Resolution in current WD did not raise comments

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/107
  ISSUE-107: Exact format of the response header?
  Reason: Proposal in Sec 5.2 in current WD did not raise comments
    Note 1: I perceive the discussion of the format to be closed
      If we choose headers, we are likely to use the current proposal
    Note 2: The discussion whether to use headers and/or URIs is still open.

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/120
  ISSUE-120: Should the response header be mandatory (MUST) or
recommended (SHOULD)
  Reason: "SHOULD" in current WD (5.2.1) did not raise comments

Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 15:08:02 UTC