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

Re: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions

From: Jack L. Hobaugh Jr <jack@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:48:51 -0500
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-Id: <066796FF-C657-4AA6-A654-4161BA02BF0E@networkadvertising.org>
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>

To maintain the balance or symmetry as proposed by Shane below, I would also add:

To the extent that HTTP intermediaries are permitted by the TPE to inject a “DNT:1” signal (see TPE 4.2), the “HTTP intermediary” MUST also support User Granted Exceptions (“UGE”) to be compliant with the standard.

Best regards,


Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of Technology 
1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org

On Dec 4, 2013, at 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 20:49:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:20 UTC