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

Batch closing of TPE issues (Deadline: December 03)

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:10:07 +0100
Message-ID: <5284936F.1070302@schunter.org>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Folks,


while we are working on the new issues, I suggest we close the set of 
TPE-related issues that have been PENDING REVIEW for many months. These 
document the outcome of our former discussions on TPE where we reached a 
conclusion that resulted in text. For each of those issues, the text 
resolving the issue is already included into the TPE spec (and has been 
there for a long time).

Please: Validate that you can live with the resolution of the enclosed 
issues (Deadline: December 03).

In case you want to object to closing an issue, please provide the 
required documentation (see "the plan"), i.e., roughly you should say 
why the issue cannot be closed, what concern you have that is not 
addressed, and what alternative text you proposed to mitigate your concern.


Thanks a lot!

matthias

--------------8<------------------
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137
ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between first 
party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s)

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153
ISSUE-153: What are the implications on software that changes requests 
but does not necessarily initiate them?

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161
ISSUE-161: Do we need a tracking status value for partial compliance?

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/164
ISSUE-164: To what extent should the "same-party" attribute of tracking 
status resource be required

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/168
ISSUE-168: What is the correct way for sub-services to signal that they 
are taking advantage of a transferred exception?

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/195
ISSUE-195: Flows and signals for handling "potential" out of band consent

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/197
ISSUE-197: How do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is received?
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 09:10:32 UTC

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