W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Batch closing of issues (ISSUE-144, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-190, ISSUE-173, ISSUE-138) [pls Respond by Jan 30]

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:31:37 -0500
Message-ID: <51196339.5080304@schunter.org>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Dave,

I am OK with your first list of updates. I would only insert the novel 
ISSUES that are OPEN or PENDING_REVIEW since these are currently under 
active consideration by the group.

Regards,
matthias



On 11/02/2013 16:24, David Singer wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 16:14 , Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Team,
>>
>> fyi: I have closed ISSUEs 190, 173, 138
>> I have left ISSUE-144 and ISSUE-187 open for our Wednesday discussion.
>>
>> Regards,
>> matthias
>
> That means the sync-up update changes:
>
> my usual pass, looking at TPE issues as reported in the draft and the database.
>
>
> issue	in document		in database		action
>
> These mis-match in what is said; I have a suggested action in the last column.
>
> 112		pending review	open			update DB
> 137		pending review	open			update DB
> 140		pending review	closed			remove from document
> 144		open			pending review	update document
> 160		pending review	closed			remove from document
> 190		pending review	closed			remove from document
>
>
> None of these are in the document at all; I rather suspect that issues we have taken up or tried to resolve (open, pending review) should be inserted:
>
> 151				open	
> 152				open	
> 164				open	
> 176				open	
> 153				pending review	
> 173				pending review	
> 187				pending review	
> 141				raised	
> 143				raised	
> 167				raised	
> 182				raised	
> 185				raised	
>
> These match; no action required…
>
> 111	postponed		postponed	
> 136	open			open	
> 159	raised			raised	
> 161	pending review	pending review	
> 168	open			open
> 138					closed
> 	
>> On 21/01/2013 08:07, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>>> Hi Team,
>>>
>>> I suggest to batch-close the issues listed below that have been marked PENDING REVIEW for a while.
>>> If you disagree with my proposal to close any of those issues, please respond by Wednesday, Jan 30.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> matthias
>>> --------------------------------
>>> ISSUE-138: Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138
>>>
>>> The issue was how to obtain exceptions without Javascript-able real-estate. Our discussions are reflected in Section 6.8 of the current spec and (unless someone objects), I plan to close ISSUE-138.
>>> --------------------------------
>>> ISSUE-144: User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior while granting and for future requests?
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144
>>>
>>> IMHO, the new approach to exceptions has removed the requirements on the user agent.
>>> As a consequence, I believe we can close this issue.
>>> --------------------------------
>>> ISSUE-187: What is the right approach to exception handling?
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/187
>>>
>>> During the last call, I validated that there is a general preference for pursuing our rivised approach to exceptions (where the sites records preference and the UA may double-check it with the user). All participants can live with this approach.
>>> I suggest to close ISSUE-187.
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> ISSUE-190: Sites with multiple first parties
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/190
>>>
>>> Roy has proposed changes as response to ACTION-328 and (unless there are objections), I suggest to implement the changes suggested:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0004.html
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> ISSUE-173: The TPE uses "top-level domain" in a sense that is not the normal meaning
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/173
>>>
>>> AFAIK, David Singer has introduced the corresponding bug fixes to the spec. This ISSUE has thus been resolved and can be closed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 21:32:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:04 UTC