Re: Non-editorial change, issue 5

Hi John,

The actual change that Carl was referring to (to revert text change) has been made now:
Commit log: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2013Oct/0003.html
Editors' Draft: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html

I think the chairs might have been a little overoptimistic in this case about how quickly I make edits at their direction. :)

Thanks,
Nick

On October 2, 2013, at 12:58 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:

> Hi Carl,
> 
> I'm not sure I follow you.  Doesn't look to me like you've reverted the text to the June Draft definition of tracking. Is that what you meant to do?  It's not reflected in the editors' draft that I'm seeing.
> 
> John
> 
> On Oct 2, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi John,
>>  
>> Thank you for pointing out a non-editorial change that we have introduced to the editor's draft.
>>  
>> Our goal was to only do editorial changes at this point and follow due process for all substantive changes.
>>  
>> We have reverted the text and included the text from the April as one change proposal to the corresponding ISSUE-5.
>>  
>> Once the group has found a consensus on ISSUE-5, we will replace the current text with the text that was determined as consensus.
>>  
>> We hope that this resolves your concern.
>>  
>> Carl
>>  
>> For Carl, Matthias, and Justin
>>  
>>  
>> Carl Cargill
>> Principal Scientist, Standards
>> Adobe Systems
>> Cargill@adobe.com
>> Office: +1 541 488 0040
>> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
>> @AdobeStandards
>> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>>  
>