- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:31:32 +0200
- To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <f59e0192-4228-4651-8207-35b4a4cd178e@email.android.com>
Nick, you are correct. Issue is against the TPE. Maybe paragraph 5.1 TPE (Communicating a Tracking Status | Overview) is a good placeholder. Rob Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org> wrote: >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 08:32:53 UTC