Re: Batch closing of TPE-related issues (response by April 16)

I share David and Jonathan's understanding of the situation.  Seems to me Issue 161 needs at least to stay at "pending review" and not be closed…


On Apr 12, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> wrote:

> I agree with David that we do not have consensus on the noncompliance signal semantics.  Some participants want an open-ended noncompliance signal, while others would like a much narrower scope (e.g. short-term testing).
> 
> As for resolution, I'm indifferent between leaving ISSUE-161 at PENDING REVIEW or moving it to CLOSED and creating a new ISSUE for noncompliance semantics.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Friday, April 12, 2013 at 8:03 AM, David Wainberg wrote:
> 
>> 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<Untitled.png>	OPEN	How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions?	
>>> 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<Untitled.png>	
>>> User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior while granting and for future requests?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<Untitled.png>	
>>> o we need a tracking status value for partial compliance or rejecting DNT?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<Untitled.png>
>>> WebWide Not	
>>> There should not be an API for web-wide exceptionshttp://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<Untitled.png>
>>> Reciprocal Consent	
>>> Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a userhttp://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143
>>> 
>>> REASON:
>>> - We will have this discussion as part of ISSUE-194.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>