- From: David Wainberg <david@appnexus.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:03:07 -0400
- To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "public-tracking-announce@w3.org" <public-tracking-announce@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5168222B.4040503@appnexus.com>
Hi Matthias, On 161, the "!" signal, while we do seem to have consensus on the signal, I do not believe we have reached consensus on the precise meaning or the language describing it in the spec. Therefore, the issue should remain open. -David On 4/12/13 9:00 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote: > 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 15:12:58 UTC