W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > September 2014

Resolving Last Call issues to TPE

From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 21:28:30 -0400
Message-ID: <1476301182-263196672@mail.maclaboratory.net>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
        Last week on the call, we walked through a bunch of proposed edits (or non-edits) from the TPE editors based on the Last Call comments we got on the TPE (for a look at the issues raised, go here: https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/6).  For many of those issues, there was general agreement on the call to adopt Roy’s and David's suggestions; however, I wanted to give others the opportunity to raise objections before they were adopted by consensus. Rough working group minutes of last week’s call are available here: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/03-dnt-minutes 

Unless a working group participant objects, we will go with the call consensus on the following issues: 

ISSUE-244: priority of local legislation (no change, but general agreement to update language in TCS and possibly also FAQ). https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/244 

ISSUE-245: highlighting accessibility in user interface guidelines (no change as this deals with UA requirements and primacy of local law) https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/245 

ISSUE-246: terminology of user-granted exception vs. user-granted permission (no change, this issue had been raised and addressed before, plus it would conflict with existing implementations) https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/246 

ISSUE-247: update HTTP draft references (Roy adopted the suggestion to update the HTTPbis draft references based on the RFCSs have published earlier this summer) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/247 

ISSUE-248: using Unicode notation in ABNF (Roy proposed to remove the parenthetical notes of (%x31) and (%x30) as difficult to read, but doesn’t think it’s appropriate to insert human readable text in request field which is designed for machine interpretation) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/248 

ISSUE-250: non-ASCII not permitted in extensions (Roy proposes no change for the same reason that the header fields aren’t intended for humans. There was also agreement to mark the entire extension syntax as “at risk” since there haven’t been any proposed implementations as yet. If no one implements during CR, it would eventually be dropped from the spec.) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/250 

ISSUE-251: Section title for 6.2.7 doesn’t match earlier description (Commenter suggested text on “potential consent” doesn’t precisely match short descriptor as “tracking only if consented.” Roy suggested against revising as an editorial decision.) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/251 

ISSUE-252: IRI/non-ASCII not permitted (no change, as status-id not designed to be a human-readable name) https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/252 

ISSUE-253: Section 6.4.2: restriction to “URI-safe characters”: (no change, for same reason) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/253 

ISSUE-259: require public-facing statement of server response policy (no change, as TPE --- not a privacy policy --- should define what the TSVs mean) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/259 


We also discussed a few issues where we were unable to get consensus. We will continue to discuss these (and other Last Call issues) on the following weeks’ calls.  Nick will distribute an agenda for this Wednesday's call tomorrow.

ISSUE-262: guidance regarding server responses and timing (disagreement about the effect of DNT on real time bidding) ) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/262  

ISSUE-243: origin/browsing context terminology (David trying to find experts to help get the terminology right) ) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/243  

ISSUE-255: comments on doNotTrack property (disagreement about whether to do through navigator instead of window (David to work with Adrian to resolve?) ) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/255  

ISSUE-256: comments on exception APIs (disagreement about value vs. risk of feedback) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/256       Normal   0               false   false   false      EN-US   X-NONE   X-NONE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2014 01:28:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:13 UTC