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

Re: Issue-5 Option C: No Definition

From: Jack L. Hobaugh Jr <jack@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:53:46 -0500
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E797CA38-0896-4047-932D-7AEFDBD6539B@networkadvertising.org>
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Hi Justin,

Although your proposed fix would clarify the location of the definition of tracking it unfortunately would remove the option of "no definition" for tracking because your fix as worded presumes a definition exists.

I think it would be clearer if Option C for “no definition” remained and another section for the location of the definition (relevant to only Options A and B) was added.  

In other words, Option C and the location of the definition are mutually exclusive.

Best regards,

Jack

Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of Technology 
1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org





On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:

> Jack, Option C says that there should be no definition of tracking in the definitions section (which is in the Compliance document) but also by implication says that there shouldn't be a definition in TPE either (the TPE editors have told the group they were simply going to recreate the definition of tracking in TPE).  However, group members should provide any objections about where the tracking definition should or shouldn't reside in this field.
> 
> I will ask Nick to rephrase the Option be entitled "Document Location" and say:  If you have an objection to including the definition of tracking in either the TPE document or the Compliance document, please describe your objection, with clear and specific reasoning.
> 
> Jack, does this fix any confusion?
> 
> Working group members still have until November 20th to respond to the Call for Objections for ISSUES -5 and -10.
> 
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Jack L. Hobaugh Jr <jack@networkadvertising.org> wrote:
> 
>> Justin, Matthias,
>> 
>> I want to take this opportunity to clear up some potential confusion that may exist regarding Option C for Issue-5 in the call for objections.
>> 
>> Option C: No definition states: “No definition; remove from Definitions section, rest of document unchanged.”
>> 
>> My understanding is that when this option was first submitted it was to remove the definition from the TCS document.  
>> 
>> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0369.html
>> 
>> As the option is currently worded, that is not clear as “document” could also refer to the TPE.
>> 
>> I would suggest that “document” be changed to “TCS document” for clarity and that a “Document location” section be added to Issue-5 to be consistent with the Issue-10 call for objections structure.
>> 
>> I think these two changes will remove any remaining confusion.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jack
>> 
>> Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
>> Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of Technology 
>> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
>> P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 20:54:15 UTC

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