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

Re: Please Re-Open Issue-47

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 11:37:54 +0100
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-id: <D4E5796B-6ECD-43BB-8CEC-0732E3B4CE29@apple.com>
To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
We've discussed providing a link in the WKR for "additional compliance or audit regimes to which this site complies" and I think that that has real value.  It's clear that as a general standard, we can set the protocol in place, and the basis of what not tracking means, but the W3C will not do formal compliance or audit, and the specification is necessarily geography-insensitive.  Allowing members of bodies such as the DAA to say "and we also comply with the DAA requirements, we satisfy their conformance, and pass their audit", for example, seems to be a goodness, as well as being able to say "we meet the specific requirements of the Turks and Caicos Islands privacy commission".


On Oct 30, 2013, at 20:20 , Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net> wrote:

> I'd also like to see this issue/idea re-opened and explored thoroughly by the working group.  Given the new context since the poll, I think this idea allows for a nice compliment to the TPE-only or TPE-first effort.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris
> 
> Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB | chris.mejia@iab.net 
> 
> From: Shane Wiley - Yahoo! <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
> Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:44 AM
> To: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Please Re-Open Issue-47
> 
> TPWG Co-Chairs,
>  
> I respectfully request we reopen Issue-47 due to change in course for the Working Group.  We have a place in the TPE to allow a Server to respond with further information about their compliance with DNT in human readable form (well-known URI location) which allowed this issue to be originally closed.  I believe we now need a more structured method to indicate a specific compliance regime that a Server is supporting and Iím not sure the current link approach provides enough structure. 
>  
> This could be a net new issue but some of that conversation was contained around this issue but basically at TPE field/well-known URI location that designates the compliance regime would fit this need (name of compliance standard, link to definitions, link to deeper details).  This would allow the browser to communicate to users the compliance regime in a more stable fashion (for example, this site supports DAA Compliance requirements).
>  
> - Shane
>  
>  

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 1 November 2013 10:38:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:20 UTC