- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:45:11 +0200
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 20:45:42 UTC
Dear group, hereby my text proposal for issue-201. It is also open for discussion. Nick could you please add it to the change list for the June Draft? Thanks, Rob Text proposal: <text> In general, OOBC trumps UGE. OOBC: When a party relies on OOBC, it MUST use the tracking status value "C" and a well as a provide a well known resource/control link to easily revoke consent. A user agent MAY change the DNT expression to DNT:0 for that network interaction. UGE: When a party relies on UGE, and a user grants a UGE, the user agent MUST change the DNT expression to DNT:0 for that network interaction. The user agent MUST provide easy access to the list of UGEs as well as provide a means to easily revoke an individual UGE or all UGEs. </text>
Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 20:45:42 UTC