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: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:51:46 -0400
Message-ID: <526AD9E2.3010108@appnexus.com>
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
A definition that stands on its own is a very different ask from one 
that works in conjunction with a fully-formed compliance doc. Most, if 
not all, of the current definitions were contemplated in the context of 
moving forward with the compliance doc.

On 2013-10-25 4:35 PM, Walter van Holst wrote:
> 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 20:52:14 UTC

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