- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:23:43 +0200
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Folks, I did a pass over the ISSUES that are still open (OPEN/PENDING REVIEW) within the TPE spec. Enclosed is my suggested way forward for each of them based on our WG discussions so far. Note that I did not include the discussions that are RAISED. We will discuss a subset of those and agree how to proceed with them. Feedback is welcome. In particular if you do not agree with the proposed handling of these issues. Regards, matthias --------------------------------8< --------------------- ISSUE-111: Using DNT header to signal existance of exceptions - currently not in spec - Spec allows JS Api to query exceptions - This allows sites to validate that their requirements are met - This seems to be OK for the participants - WAY FORWARD: Close issue unless objections are received ISSUE-116: DOM API - There is proposed text in the spec in Section 4.3 - This text seems undisputed - WAY FORWARD: Close issue unless objections are received ISSUE-112: Handling of sub-domains for site-specific exceptions - Proposal 1: Explicit list no wildcards - WAY FORWARD: Discuss in Amsterdam ISSUE-137: Service provider flag - We had discussions in two calls - Current spec does not contain a service provider flag - There seems to be no proposal without sustained objections - Call for text proposals has been emailed - WAY FORWARD: - If no alternative text is proposed, the issue will be closed - If alternative text is proposed, the chairs issue a call for objections ISSUE-144: Constraints on user agents - There is proposed text in the spec in Section 6: - The current spec introduces a notion of exceptions that are stored - The current spec mandates that sets of exceptions are treated as a unit, i.e., if exceptions for third parties {a,b,c} have been requested on a site, then {a,b,c } can only be removed as a whole - Note: This means that a user can,e.g., no longer express a preference to allow {a,b} while disallowing {c} - This text seems undisputed - WAY FORWARD: Close issue unless objections are received ISSUE-159: TPEs and mashups - Concern has been raised - No proposed solution yet - WAY FORWARD: Postpone for now ISSUE-160: API for querying exceptions - The current spec contains a new querying API in section 6.6 - WAY FORWARD: Close issue unless objections are received ISSUE-164: Under what conditions should same-party be mandatory - Current spec declares the same-party attribute to be optional - WAY FORWARD: - If no alternative text is proposed, the issue will be closed - If alternative text is proposed, the chairs issue a call for objections
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 16:24:25 UTC