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

Re: Batch closing of TPE issues (Deadline: December 03)

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:30:01 +0100
Message-ID: <5284FA89.40606@schunter.org>
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Alan,

thanks a lot for the note.

Note that we came to proposed text for each of these issues many months 
ago (i.e., everyone active on TPE had many months to check those issues) 
and most people active in the TPE have read and commented on those text 
already. The result is in the current TPE at:

HINT: Often, the  issue resolution is marked in the document. If you, 
e.g., search for "ISSUE-137" in the TPE spec, you will find a box 
explaining how ISSUE-137 has been resolved. This may make your life 
easier to understand how the issues have been resolved.

To provide some further relief, I put the deadline for this task to 
almost 3 weeks.


On 14/11/2013 15:49, Alan Chapell wrote:
> Hi Matthias -
> Perhaps I'm the only one feeling the pinch, but from my side of the room,
> the chairs are throwing a tremendous amount of work at the working group
> for completion in a relatively short period of time. Given the
> interdependencies that many of these issues have, we're bound to make
> mistakes if we continue at this pace. Like you, most of us have day jobs.
> With that in mind, I encourage you to ease up a bit (:
> Thanks!
> -alan
> On 11/14/13 4:10 AM, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)"
> <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:
>> 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 16:30:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:02 UTC