Re: ACTION-359: Add proposal for ISSUE-161 to allow an indicator of non-compliance within the tracking status value for testing and deployment from David Wainberg on 2013-02-06 (public-tracking@w3.org from February 2013)

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:33:03 -0500
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5112CC0F.3030007@networkadvertising.org>

On 2/6/13 12:23 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> I agree that it needs a different name ("dormant" or "status-only" might
> be better than "non-standard" though). Would that address your questions
> regarding "non-compliance" above, or would they apply regardless of the
> name?
I'm open to other names, but I do also have doubts about the need for 
additional requirements to go in the tracking status resource.

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 21:33:32 UTC