- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:54:24 +0100
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <50B24D40.6040807@schunter.org>
Hi Team, enclosed V01 of our agenda for Wednesday. Comments are welcome! (in particular if I overlooked any information on the issues listed). Regards, matthias --------------------------- Administrative --------------------------- 1. Selection of scribe --------------------------- Old business --------------------------- 2. Review of overdue action items: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owne <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner> 3.Quick check that callers are identified --------------------------- 4. ISSUES marked PENDING REVIEW --------------------------- Goal: - Agree on adding the proposed text (or create action for writing alternative text) ISSUE-21: Enable external audit of DNT compliance https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/21 Are we OK with adding the text proposal by Kevin to our spec: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0000.html ISSUE-113: How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)? http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112 On these issues IMHO the status is as follows: - If a site-wide exception is requested, all subdomains are automatically included - This issue is only relevant for explicit/explicit lists of domains (if the site uses them) - An original proposal (from Ian) used cookie-like handling - The current approach requires explicit listing of all sub-domains - Is this current approach OK or do we need to text alternatives? ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137 IMHO: - The minutes at http://www.w3.org/2012/10/05-dnt-minutes contain some text on ISSUE-137 - No action is assigned - TODO: Discuss and define way forward ISSUE-138: Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138 Review non-normative text by Nick and agree that it is OK to put into the spec. ISSUE-153: What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them? https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153 Proposed text (by david and nick): "Software outside of the user agent that causes a DNT header to be sent (or modifies existing headers) MUST NOT do so without following the requirements of this section; such software is responsible for assuring the expressed preference reflects the user's intent." --------------------------- 5. ISSUES marked OPEN --------------------------- Goal: review open issues at https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/2 and assign actions to them ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory? http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/164 My understanding of the minutes is that we agreed in Amsterdam: - keep a MAY (optional) - Say that if a site that loads additional content "to be used in 1st party context" (flag: 1) from other domains, this content may not work properly unless this domain is desclared as "same-party" - If this approach is still OK, I suggest to create an action to textify it. 6. Announce next meeting & adjourn ================ Infrastructure ================= Zakim teleconference bridge: VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225) IRC Chat: irc.w3.org <http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt *****
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2012 16:54:52 UTC