- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:36:58 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:21 , Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > The purpose of a single, one or two sentence definition of what > DNT:1 means (and also what DNT:0 means) is so that it can be > included in the UI, either directly or via tooltip/documentation, > and thus become part of the nomenclature that can be reasonably > understood by the user setting that config. > OK, I was looking at a completely different purpose: to narrow the scope of what we need to discuss and specify, such that if you fall *outside* the scope, you don't have to worry about this spec. at all. > Furthermore, it allows us to make progress on the rest of the > specification with a common understanding of what the specification > is intended to accomplish, as opposed to what we just experienced > on the call. Just why I want to narrow the scope so we can truncate some discussions by saying "that's out of scope". > >> So please do not use the definition for the access log argument. The >> real question on access logs is the time of non-anonymized >> retention. W3C anonymizes logs as a matter of policy after 6 weeks. >> This also helps with exuberant subpoenae. We can (and should IMHO) >> discuss this explicitly instead of complicating the definition. > > No, we can use fine print to further *restrict* the scope of retention, > because the user is not going to complain about further constraints > on what they have already permitted. We cannot use fine print to > broaden the scope to allow things that do not appear to be allowed > by the definition. All the permitted uses cover allowing some form or degree of tracking - that is their essential nature. I don't see how to accomplish what you want here. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 20:37:31 UTC