Re: ACTION-253 ISSUE: 119 and ACTION 208 ISSUE-148 Response signal for "not tracking" and definition for DNT:0

Hi David,

On Sep 11, 2012, at 3:16 PM, David Wainberg <> wrote:
> Moreover, how are we going to define "anonymous" or "pseudonymous" or "foo"? Given that this is an unnecessary appendage anyway, and that we can't even define "tracking" in a "do not track" standard, why do we want to create the problem of now having to define some other state. To include it without a definition would be unacceptable.

I think we're agreed on defining the terms we use in the specification and communicate to users. It sounds like part of your concern here is that we would need to define new terminology and that that would be confusing. Would just providing the no-permitted-uses communication satisfy this concern [0]? This wouldn't be new terminology, just optional transparency back to the user about claimed permitted uses.

The group has already agreed on including the capability to claim which permitted uses in a machine-readable way, and I think Shane has made the case that transparency about claimed permitted uses is one of the key advantages of this specification.



Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 04:51:16 UTC