Re: Issue-151: Proposed Text (Updated)

I'm not at all certain that every browser extension can or will piggy-back -- I'm merely saying that IF one does, I don't see how it thwarts the goal that Shane stated.  

Lee

On Dec 23, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:

> How certain are we that every browser extension will be able to piggy back
> off of the browser's exemption process?
> 
> To build on your analogy, the sidecar only works if it is designed to
> remain attached to the motorcycle. (Unless you're a Marx Brother)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHnV8kctQdg
> 
> (:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/23/13 3:36 PM, "Lee Tien" <tien@eff.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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_handl
>>>> e_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 Monday, 23 December 2013 21:09:53 UTC