RE: Issue-151: Proposed Text (Updated)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

But the overriding of a DNT:0 (for instance by a home router) should still be possible e.g. it might have been as a result of a child's action (accepting a UGE) and a parent should be able to contradict that. As long as it the result of user intention intermediaries should be able to change the header, any other restriction is dictatorial and pointless.

Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Tien [mailto:tien@eff.org]
> Sent: 23 December 2013 20:37
> To: Shane M Wiley
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue-151: Proposed Text (Updated)
> 
> I guess I don't see how the goal is frustrated if the "combo" of browser and
> extension/plug-in is still fully able to store/send the UGE signal.  I am assuming
> you can't use the plug-in/extension without a browser.
> 
> Maybe this is a bad example but isn't it like a sidecar (that might not be the right
> name) on a motorcycle, sidecar doesn't need a steering wheel because the
> motorcycle already has one?
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 23, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> 
> > Lee,
> >
> > I believe the UGE support would need to extend to the extension/plug-in in this
> case.  The goal is say you can only send the DNT signal if you're also able to
> store/send the UGE signal as well.
> >
> > As for extension/plug-in balance for setting the DNT signal, we agreed to this
> with David Singer on issue 153 on/after the call last week so Brad is working
> with David to provide that edit to the group.
> >
> > - Shane
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lee Tien [mailto:tien@eff.org]
> > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 1:10 PM
> > To: Shane M Wiley
> > Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Issue-151: Proposed Text (Updated)
> >
> > Shane,
> >
> > I'm imagining a situation where an extension or plug-in enforces the user's
> DNT preference in the browser, which itself supports UGE.  The extension/plug-
> in relies on the browser's UGE facility, but does not support UGE itself.
> >
> > Is that in or out under this updated text?
> >
> > Lee
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 23, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> >
> >> Per our last WG call, I've updated the proposed language for 151 based on
> the uncertainty of how Issue-153 will resolve (per Jack's request).
> >>
> >> ------
> >> (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 any software that changes user preference
> requests 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).
> >> ------
> >>
> >>
> >> 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_ha
> ndle_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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.2.34.4474 - http://www.gpg4o.de/
Charset: utf-8

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSuKKBAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JQYoH/13H2HD/X47MuLKct5YlD5Rz
+tReD+lTBVCa7dYpdGMtPWMq0aFeWMq0MxZlCab4t+bIrdj5iM/xZQhSO2Qb50QC
aqfbYrhvGojMqM4bVaZq1dkUEgOQy8Urc8rD0DKtRWqNhaTItB7z5AX+PqrZPa+3
gGG7oycqPUls2oNLL2tfyPvkMiKA9d5oEskmsYwjAMMcfX7aA1ooNFJ2iDg4X9bj
JygfB89RpxqRRuTrLIAizKIO4YJoOgSiS3bWLC/EqHSqLMLBX2+5+WOoNhvID0nQ
dHQFy40mbL8hom+cGoedc7iw+v5xUa9OzLSHU88XjQPuSGUE1JNyTOs8rnsuZHQ=
=GgjA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 23 December 2013 20:52:50 UTC