- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 01:39:22 -0800
- To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
On Jan 8, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Walter van Holst wrote: > 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)? The latter is how the current editors' draft defines qualifiers. > Neither option is very attractive, I must admit. Fortunately, I don't think it impacts the goal of TPE. The DNT signal is still being sent to those resources, and the user still expects that their activity within other contexts won't be retained (even by accident). A legitimate compliance regime can be expected to address such mistakes with appropriate requirements. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 09:39:45 UTC