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

Re: TPE Handling Out-of-Band Consent (including ISSUE-152)

From: Ronan Heffernan <ronansan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:59:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHyiW9+AnTsPf89zxC7sLbmdOtNBLDNfm3RVpgOpUju0Ripqcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
I'm sorry, I thought that we were scrapping "L" in favor of "D"
("disallowed"?).  Whatever symbol we use to indicate that there will be a
later determination is fine.  However, if you use "C" for "conditional"
instead of "C" for "consent", then are you scrapping all real-time consent
detection?  I am not opposed to real-time consent detection, for those
systems where it is possible, and would not suggest that we make it
impossible for a server to signal that it has definitely detected an OOBC.


On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

>  Ronan,****
> ** **
> The working group appeared to agree to use the “L” for not listening based
> on this week’s call (“!” will be used to signal something different).  How
> about stick with “C” but name it “Conditional” with a resource link to
> explain what that means in your context?****
> ** **
> - Shane
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 17:00:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:07 UTC