W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2013

ISSUE-161: Discussion of semantics and alternatives to "!" (was: Batch closing)

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:03:06 +0200
Message-ID: <516BD05A.4050104@schunter.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi David/Jonathan,


thanks a lot for the pushback ;-)

I overlooked that ISSUE-161 is still discussed.

My interpretation of "!" is that the site makes no claims whatsoever and 
does not claim to comply with our standard. It can post a "!" for 
whatever reasons it likes. Examples include testing, debugging, problems 
with enforcement, not liking DNT, ...
Since the site says "I do not follow DNT", it is equivalent of not 
posting any DNT-related information and furthermore, if a site posts "!" 
it is not bound by any constraint that we make. The goal was to, e.g., 
allow
a site to build the DNT infrastructure (including a "!" flag) while then 
removing the "!" once everything works. It is basically a shortcut for 
removing all DNT-related infos from a site.

I believe that such a signal is useful and I do not see any harm (feel 
free to explain the downside if you see any).

Could someone sketch potential alternative semantics and/or additional 
signals that are needed within the scope of ISSUE-161?


Regards.
  matthias

On 12/04/2013 17:03, 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 
>> <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 Monday, 15 April 2013 10:03:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:29 UTC