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: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:24:55 +0000
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCCF036E573F0142BD90964789F720E3141D784B@GQ1-MB01-02.y.corp.yahoo.com>

Fair points - it is a matter of granularity.  Hopefully we rest on a definition of Tracking that provides flexibility for self-regulatory groups across the globe to better articulate what this means in their particular context.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 4:21 PM
To: Shane M Wiley
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection

On Oct 25, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Shane M Wiley wrote:

> I agree semantics are important but I don't believe they need to be shared.  So if I order a coffee at Starbucks and a coffee at another coffee shop - they both don't have to share the same beans or same brewing approach.

No, but they both have to know what coffee is so that they don't give you tea instead.

> It's this level of flexibility that I believe the standard will need to have such that not all implementers need to agree with the W3C's definition of tracking; they may subscribe to a different definition and as long as this is communicated to the user they are informed as to what their choice means there (at that particular coffee shop) all is in order.

You are talking about flexibility of compliance.  I am talking about consistency in user expression, which depends only on a common definition and consistency in its implementation by browsers.

Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 23:25:44 UTC

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