- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:00:13 +0200
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- CC: public-tracking-announce@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5168055D.2070801@schunter.org>
Hi Folks, as part of our final cleanup in preparation of our next working draft, I suggest to close the issues listed below. Please respond by April 16 if you cannot live with the proposed resolution of those issues. If you do so, please include a justification and describe what concern of yours is not addressed in the currently documented draft of the TPE. Regards, matthias -------------- ISSUE-112 <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112>(edit) <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112/edit> OPEN How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112 REASON: - We agreed to use cookie-matching-like wildcards and rules to allow for code-reuse in user agents - This is reflected in the spec ISSUE-144 <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144>(edit) <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144/edit> User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior while granting and for future requests? <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144 REASON: In the new exception model, user agents are required to communicate the status of an exception. The status may be changed by end users and no further requirements are needed. This is reflected in the spec. NOTE: We still have an open issue whether user agents are required to implement the exception API. ISSUE-161 <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161>(edit) <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161/edit> o we need a tracking status value for partial compliance or rejecting DNT? <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161 RESOLUTION: - We defined a "!" indicator that says that the site is not claiming to comply (e.g., maintenance / under construction) ISSUE-185 <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185>(edit) <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185/edit> WebWide Not There should not be an API for web-wide exceptions <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185 RESOLUTION: - We reached agreement that there will be an API for web-side exceptions ISSUE-143 <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143>(edit) <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143/edit> Reciprocal Consent Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143 REASON: - We will have this discussion as part of ISSUE-194.
Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 13:01:10 UTC