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

On Mar 10, 2014, at 8:35 AM, David Wainberg wrote:
> On 2014-03-08 12:44 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:11 PM, David Wainberg wrote:
>> 
>>> Matthias,
>>> 
>>> What I don't understand about this is why, if Roy can unilaterally add the T without group discussion or consensus, Jack's proposal is being rejected by the chairs out of hand? 
>> 
>> I changed the duo TSV of "1" or "3" to a "T" as part of the directive to
>> remove indicators of compliance from the protocol.  
> Remove, not add.

Yes, remove.  I did that.  I removed the characteristics of the response
that made it dependent on TCS.  That does not imply that I can remove
the remaining characteristics.  This is refinement, not amputation.
And it is not "unilateral" for the editor to make a text proposal within
the editor's draft based on a decision by the chairs -- that is what an
editor is supposed to do, and then the WG is supposed to discuss the
merits of that proposal.  Which we did.  Three months ago.

> And since we're on the topic, why and when was the "disregard" signal dropped?

"D" is still there. In fact, I am about to remove the option box.

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#TSV-D

>> That has had plenty
>> of discussion, both prior to the change and after I described the change.
>> It even provoked a related CfO.
>> 
> Irrelevant.

If by irrelevant you mean that your comment was completely off base, yes.
It is not my responsibility to ensure you attend every meeting.

>> This is hardly an opportunity to criticize the chairs -- Matthias was
>> just asking questions in order to elicit some clue as to why the suggested
>> change might be needed.
> I'm not criticizing the chairs. I'm asking why Jack's proposal is not being added to the TPE. 

Because it is neither editorial nor desirable by the editor, nor is it
in line with the other decisions already made by the WG, nor is there a
technical reason to prefer it to the existing option of "T".  Hence,
it would have to be proposed as a normative change to the spec and
not phrased in a way that conflicts with the decision on issue-5.

>> I am the one who rejected the addition of "R" (or at least the suggestion
>> that it is an editorial change).  The change to "T" wasn't an editorial
>> change either -- it was a proposal by an editor to the WG after discussion
>> amongst the editorial group (including chairs).  That's why it was
>> described in the message that Jack quoted.
>> 
>> In any case, this whole discussion seems to be based on a failure to
>> understand what the "T" TSV means and how it would be used by servers.
> I think I understand what it means, but maybe not. Please educate me.

I think I did that in the reply to Shane.

....Roy