TPE Editorial Proposal to Remove Another Hard Dependency on the Compliance Specification

Dear Co-Chairs:

On December 8, 2013, Roy Fielding notified the TPWG that:
Over the past three weeks I have made a number of changes to the TPE
editors' draft in order to remove the hard dependency on the Compliance
specification and note the currently pending WG decisions.
. . . .
This reflects a first pass on revising TPE toward the new plan.
Most of the changes are simply editorial rephrasing to avoid an
indication of compliance.  The non-editorial changes are summarized
below. Note that these changes represent a set of proposals by the
editor and are subject to the usual disclaimers regarding not yet
being WG consensus.
. . . .
5.2.*
    -- removed "1" and "3" tracking status values since they imply
       compliance; they can still be sent as qualifiers.
    -- added   "T" TSV (tracking) as replacement for 1/3
    -- changed "!" TSV from non-compliant to under construction
    -- changed "X" TSV (dynamic) to "?" to be more self-descriptive
(Found at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0044.html)

Mr. Fielding also introduced Issue-239 and the TPWG has reached consensus on that issue.  Issue-239 permits a server to provide a link to a compliance regime or policy.

I agree with Roy that the hard dependency on the Compliance specification should be removed from the TPE and that a server should have the ability to point to the compliance regime being followed by that server.

Towards that goal, I now propose adding the following TSV value in order to remove a hard dependency on the Compliance Specification:

— “R” TSV (reference)

“R” (reference) notifies the user to refer to the “compliance” field to understand how a DNT:1 signal will be treated by the server.

For example:

{

            “tracking”: “R”,

            “compliance”: [“https://www.companyX.com/NonW3CCompliancePolicy”],

            . . .

}



Again, the rationale for this proposal is remove a hard dependency on the Compliance specification.   Specifically, for those entities that adopt a non-W3C compliance regime that may have a conflicting definition of “tracking,” this addition may allow those entities to also adopt the W3C TPE protocol specification.

Best regards,

Jack

Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of Technology 
1620 Eye St. NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20006
P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. However, it is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. You should contact a lawyer for any legal advice. If you are not an intended recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender immediately.