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

Re: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection

From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 22:35:25 +0200
Message-ID: <526AD60D.5020009@xs4all.nl>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
On 25/10/2013 22:19, Justin Brookman wrote:
> And we have not made such a decision! But if we were to do some version
> of 3 or 4 (or 3.5), I believed I heard broad support for a definition of
> tracking in the TPE document.  However, if you now believe that is
> unnecessary, you can propose that NO DEFINITION be included in the Call
> for Objections.

If we have a Compliance Spec that says what you can and cannot do when
you receive a DNT signal, a definition of what tracking is, is not
essential. Helpful, but you can have one without such a definition.

If we are not going to have a Compliance Spec before finalising the TPE,
we cannot have a TPE without a tracking definition. It just makes zero
sense.

Like I said before: I can live with a way forward that is without a
Compliance Spec, but that means the TPE must stand on its own. A
tracking definition is essential for such a scenario.

Other things have to be added to the TPE as well, such as a response
signal indicating whatever compliance spec the recipient is adhering to,
if any.

Regards,

 Walter
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 20:35:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC