- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:38:23 -0500
- To: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org> (Intel Corporation)
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
On Feb 11, 2013, at 16:31 , Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote: > 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. sure, that's the second list. which of these should be in the TPE? >> 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 > > 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. >> > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 21:38:58 UTC