Re: Signals for internal / external usage of site elements (the signals formerly called "1" and "3") from Walter van Holst on 2014-01-08 (public-tracking@w3.org from January 2014)

From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:29:57 +0100
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Message-ID: <2e6dd398d27184d6970f20926538303a@xs4all.nl>

On 2014-01-08 09:14, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> Hence, I don't think the merits of a tracking status value for 1/3
> come anywhere near to justifying its cost, both in terms of getting
> consensus on TPE and in getting implementations of the protocol in
> practice.  If there is ever a need for that information as a means of
> explaining compliance, then it can be included in a qualifier along
> with all of the other explanations of compliance.

Your arguments are quite convincing. The question that remains is if 
(and how) we would allow for future expressions of a tracking status 
according to whatever party definition from the applicable compliance 
spec.

Do we include an optional signal here that is to be defined by the 
compliance spec? Or do we allow for such an optional signal to be 
defined by the compliance spec(s)?

Neither option is very attractive, I must admit.

Regards,

  Walter

Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 08:30:29 UTC