- From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 01:23:43 -0700
- To: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Rob, As I understand it, this text is intended for the Tracking Preference Expression document, along with ISSUE-201. We haven't been tracking TPE issues with change proposals, at least for now. To interpret this proposal, can you clarify where in the document these new paragraphs would be added? I had thought we already included at least some of these requirements. Thanks, Nick On Jun 24, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote: > > 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 Tuesday, 25 June 2013 08:23:56 UTC