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

Plan moving forward V02

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:16:56 +0100
Message-ID: <527757F8.3090208@schunter.org>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Team,



Based on the feedback received, we have updated and clarified the plan 
how to continue.


Questions/feedback are welcome.


Regards,

matthias

The Chairs and W3C have listened to your feedback, and based on the poll 
results and the information we received during the October 16 and 30 
calls, we have revised the Plan to finalize the TWPG deliverables as 
follows:

The plan of record is option 3 of the poll: We will first bring TPE to 
last call and then continue our compliance work.

We have prioritized getting the TPE out fto last call first to enable 
implementation and testing.  We will work through and close out all 
remaining TPE issues in the coming weeks' calls.  We will also port over 
from the Compliance specification all  definitions that are important 
for defining the meaning of the TPE protocols (including but not limited 
to parties, first parties, third parties, network transaction, 
collect/retain/use/share, user, user agent, and a definition of tracking 
(of what the signal is intended to indicate)). The goal is to make the 
TPE specification self-contained such that the TPE can be understood on 
its own and no dependencies on the compliance spec remain. To minimize 
our work, if a definition is required for both documents, we will define 
it in the TPE once and for both documents. If there are other Compliance 
issues that the group believes we need to close out because of 
dependencies or other reasons, we may prioritize those as well.

Once we have finalized the TPE specification. we will resume working on 
a compliance specification.  We will then proceed to close out the 
remaining issues against that document. W3C believes that web users need 
a unified compliance standard, so that there can be one consistent 
expectation for how DNT signals will be treated.  However, one of the 
open issues that we will consider for TPE is whether to include a field 
that would allow a server to indicate an alternative compliance regime.  
We will resolve that issue based on the consensus of the working group.

Note that our plan is to finish TPE _/and/_ compliance.  We have chosen 
option 3 and not option 4. I.e., the TPE is not meant to be independent 
of the compliance spec. Instead,  the TPE is built to lay the ground and 
later seamlessly integrate with the emerging compliance spec.

We will be seeking consensus and closing out issues under the timing and 
structure previously described by the plan.

Justin, Carl, and Matthias
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 08:17:22 UTC

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