- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:59:43 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Message-ID: <516D04EF.1040808@schunter.org>
Hi Jonathan, thanks for the comments on ISSUE-161. During the coming discussion, I would like to understand the underlying concerns or envisioned risks of "selective noncompliance" in order to discuss alternatives. FYI: The responses "!" and "D" are currently marked as "OPTION" in the TPE and are associated with ISSUE-161. Based on the comments received, ISSUE-161 remains in the PENDING_REVIEW state (we have text proposed and continue discuss it). Regards, matthias On 15/04/2013 23:51, Jonathan Mayer wrote: > Some in the group, myself included, prefer to not facilitate selective > noncompliance with Do Not Track or second-guessing syntactically valid > DNT: 1 signals. The semantics of "D", "!", or any similar > status should remain OPEN. > > Jonathan > > On Monday, April 15, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel > Corporation) wrote: > >> 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 Tuesday, 16 April 2013 08:00:09 UTC