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

Re: ISSUE-161: Discussion of semantics and alternatives to "!"

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:36:52 +0200
Message-ID: <516BD844.9040701@schunter.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi!

PS: We included the discussion of the new flag "D" (disregard) that 
signals that a site has chosen to disregard a DNT signal
also under ISSUE-161. In the latest version of the TPE, both flags "D" 
and "!" are included as options and marked with ISSUE-161.

The goal of this flag is to allow sites that choose to disregard a 
signal (which is done today already) to provide transparency to the user.
This allows the user agent and user to be aware of this fact and 
consider options for remediation.


Regards,
matthias


On 15/04/2013 12:03, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> 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 10:50:16 UTC

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