Re: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions

At first blush, I like this language. If we're going to a CFO, I would
support this being included.



On 12/4/13 10:32 PM, "Shane M Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

>Nick,
>
>While you and I agree that the language as stated already makes it clear
>that a User Agent must support User Granted Exceptions UGEs to be
>compliant with the standard.  That said, it appears others felt the
>current structure of the document could be interpreted differently.  As
>such, I propose we add a specific statement at the beginning of section 6
>making this more clear:
>
>------
>(normative)
>
>The goal of this protocol is to provide balance in both the setting of
>the DNT signal and possible user granted exceptions to that DNT
>preference.  To be compliant with this standard a User Agent MUST provide
>the facility for a Server to record granted exceptions utilizing the
>services described in this section and alter DNT signals for those
>Servers appropriately going forward (DNT=0).
>------
>
>- Shane  
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nicholas Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 1:56 PM
>To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>Subject: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions
>
>As discussed on today's teleconference, we'd like to finalize the list of
>proposals for issue-151, but there was a bit of confusion today about
>whether the two we had (a. no text; b. mark feature as optional) were
>sufficient. The chairs have asked for any additional proposals by
>tomorrow (December 5th), which you can email to the group (this thread is
>fine) and add to the wiki here:
>
>  
>http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_UA_requirement_to_handle_
>exceptions
>
>I personally had thought we were already very close to consensus on this
>issue (and only needed two proposals), so apologies if I misread us.
>
>Thanks,
>Nick
>
>

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:05:47 UTC