Re: ACTION-359: Add proposal for ISSUE-161 to allow an indicator of non-compliance within the tracking status value for testing and deployment

On Feb 10, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> Some (myself included) object to a general signal for noncompliance.  The shared concern is that websites will claim they "implement Do Not Track" (i.e. the TPE protocol) when they do not implement the TCS compliance policy.
> There seemed to be greater comfort with a noncompliance signal scoped solely to temporary testing.  I would still be uneasy.
> Jonathan

Please direct your comments to the specific proposal that appears
in the editors' draft:

I believe that both the first paragraph of 5.2 and the definition
provided for the ! status are quite clear and cannot be confused
with implementing the tracking protection protocol.  If you don't
think so, please provide alternate wording.

I am less sure about confusion regarding implementing Do Not Track,
since we haven't defined that, but I seriously doubt that there
is any incentive whatsoever for sites to say that they implement
DNT when they don't actually do so.


Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 10:15:52 UTC