RE: issue-170

I also don't see any value in adding "explicit" to UGE since if there was a "granted exception", it was explicit in any case except a global "grant" of exception, but I don't think we have such a concept in the spec. Adding explicit just takes the discussion further down a rabbit hole as to e.g. how you ensure that it was explicit... a grant is a grant IMO, and unless e.g. we are to add digital signatures as non-repudiation of an action resulting in a grant, I don't see how we can usefully add "explicit".

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | Service Standards | AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Mejia [mailto:elementslifestylegroup@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 5:52 AM
To: Ninja Marnau; Mike O'Neill; public-tracking@w3.org; 'Jack Hobaugh'
Subject: Re: issue-170

This group has been historically resistant to requirements on the UI of a
UA. For example, Alan and I (and others) proposed a set of requirements on
the UI for UAs setting/sending DNT:1. We had proposed that the user be
properly informed about the choice they were making before setting DNT:1.
Essentially what we were proposing was the choice be ³clearly and
comprehensively explained² before the DNT:1 signal was set.  As I recall,
our proposal was largely rejected. So now, as I understand it, folks who
rejected our similar proposal for the setting of DNT:1, want those rules
applied for the setting of DNT:0, to servers?

Also, it seems this proposal wants to change some long-standing
terminology. User-granted-exception (UGE) is now ³an explicitly-granted
exception²?  This semantic change seems unnecessary< the definition of UGE
should suffice to inform the reader of this spec what it is, so if you
want it to include the word ³explicitly², then I think that word would be
better incorporated in the definition itself (though I¹m not entirely
supportive of this move, personally). And by the way, what is an
non-explicitly-granted exception??  In my mind, a UGE is a UGE, per it¹s
definition.

Chris Mejia




On 6/4/14, 8:28 AM, "Ninja Marnau" <ninja@w3.org> wrote:

>Mike, I updated your proposal in the wiki.
>
>Jack, do you think the text proposal is now more balanced for DNT;0 and
>UGE?
>
>Ninja
>
>Am 04.06.14 14:38, schrieb Mike O'Neill:
>> If a 1st Party receives a request with DNT:0 set then data regarding
>>the user MAY be used or shared but, if the header signal resulted from
>>an explicitly-granted exception, only for the purposes that were clearly
>>and comprehensively explained when the exception was granted.
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 17:58:51 UTC