Re: tracking-ISSUE-239: Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

The code is the URI. There is no need to retrieve or parse anything because the UA would simply compare it as a name. It naturally leads to standardization over time and doesn't require us to maintain a registry.  This is how the Web works.

....Roy


> On Dec 8, 2013, at 4:47 AM, "Mike O'Neill" <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote:
> 
> Roy,
> 
> There should be a way for UAs or audit scanners to automatically recognise compliance statements other than by constraining servers to  unique Uris or trying to parse an un-standardised document. Compliance should be indicated by a code followed by an optional Uri addressing a human-readable resource. The compliance reference codes should be in a maintained registry, maybe administered by IANA. For example DAA, NAI, EU, COPPA etc.
> 
> A server could comply with multiple ones i.e. EU and NAI, so the new TR member should be a multiple value list.
> 
> i.e. in JSON:
> 
> var trf=
> {
>    "compliance": [
>            {
>                 "code": "EU",
>                                       "description": "https://xxx.eu/DNTcompliance"
>            },
>            {
>                 "code": "NAI",
>                                       " description ": "https://www.networkadvertising.org/DNTcompliance"
>            }
>                    ]
> }
> 
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker
>> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
>> Sent: 08 December 2013 05:12
>> To: public-tracking@w3.org
>> Subject: tracking-ISSUE-239: Should tracking status representation include an
>> array of links for claiming compliance by reference? [Tracking Preference
>> Expression (DNT)]
>> 
>> tracking-ISSUE-239: Should tracking status representation include an array of
>> links for claiming compliance by reference? [Tracking Preference Expression
>> (DNT)]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/239
>> 
>> Raised by: Roy Fielding
>> On product: Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
>> 
>> I propose an optional member of the tracking status object that will allow the
>> origin server to communicate what (if any) claims it wishes to make regarding
>> compliance to certain behaviors, as defined by reference to other standard
>> resources:
>> 
>>  An origin server MAY send a member named compliance with an array value
>> containing a list of URI references that identify specific regimes to which the
>> origin server claims to comply for the designated resource. Communicating such
>> a claim of compliance is presumed to improve transparency, which might
>> influence a user's decisions or configurations regarding allowed tracking, but
>> does not have any direct impact on this protocol.
>> 
>>    compliance    = %x22 "compliance" %x22
>>    compliance-v  = array-of-refs
>> 
>> Related to ISSUE-136
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 8 December 2013 18:33:42 UTC