Re: Issue-151

Hi John and Shane,

As I tried to describe on today's and last week's calls, the editors' draft text on this topic doesn't have any explicit text about requiring implementation of this section of the specification. Similarly, I don't believe it has any sentences in other sections saying, for example, 'Implementers MUST implement this section.' Implementation of any and all sections is voluntary, of course, as we just develop Recommendations.

User agent implementers who wish to implement the full TPE specification would, based on the current text and as I understand it, need to instantiate the relevant JavaScript methods and respond to them. User agent implementers won't be implementing all sections -- for example, they won't implement the server-side tracking status resource behavior, since that's server-side. Similarly, non-JavaScript User Agents won't be able to implement a JavaScript API and users who configure their browsers to disable JavaScript won't have those methods available. In the past, participants have noted that we might want to mark this feature "At Risk" when we got to the Call-for-Implementations stage, since there have been some doubts about likelihood of implementation and adoption.

As requested on the call today, I've set up a wiki page to track relevant proposals:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_UA_requirement_to_handle_exceptions

I'm now trying to add John's and Shane's proposals (as I understand them) and would welcome any clarifications, corrections or additions.

Thanks,
Nick

On November 20, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> John,
>  
> I believe Nick captured this best on the call today.  Perhaps he can (please) chime in here.  J
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:34 AM
> To: Shane M Wiley
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: Issue-151
>  
> Hi Shane,
>  
> I'm sorry, but I am confused.  Can you point me to the text to which you are referring.  It seemed to me the version to which Nick referred me, was silent on the issue.  As you know, I strongly believe that implementation should be OPTIONAL,  but I think we both agree that we ought to be talking about the same text.
>  
> I'm not sure we are.  Can you point me to the text you are citing?
>  
> If you are referring to the current editors' text, I don't see how it does what you want and makes implementation of the UGE API a MUST
>  
> Apologies that I could not make the call this morning.
>  
> Regards,
> John
>  
>  
>  
> On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Proposal:  Maintain the existing “MUST” position in the text.