W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2015

Status of non-normative text sections

From: Nick Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:28:13 -0800
Message-Id: <92AE7FBF-E106-4719-81F8-146976C7442C@w3.org>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Regarding non-normative text:

tl;dr: we already have non-normative text and examples for many of the areas where we had it previously. I don’t see the need to add more non-normative text at this time, but if there are areas that seem unclear without an example, please let us know.

***

The sections of non-normative text in 2012 and 2013 working drafts primarily included the areas below. We discussed reviewing as part of issue-214 (proposal to add to the April 2013 Working Draft) to identify non-normative sections and examples from previous drafts. I think the April 2013 WD actually already had much of the non-normative text removed for readability reasons, so I’ve reviewed that WD and the previous one (October 2012).

Deidentification methods and considerations:
We have a substantial non-normative section in our settled text on deidentification, which I believe is intended to accomplish the same thing.

Explaining party distinction:
The October 2012 draft includes text explaining why party is relevant for a particular interaction, because it can change. I believe we’ve generally improved that text subsequently, as we now always refer to first- and third-party as related to a given user action (and have defined terminology on user action) rather than any implicit connotation about the status of an organization. I don’t believe we need separate non-normative text to explain that motivation in the actual text of the recommendation.

Examples:
I’ve already added example blocks to show how to use different tracking status values in different situations. In at least one previous Working Draft we included examples for different permitted uses. We still include examples inline in some of the permitted uses (using language like "This may include”) but only have a separate example block for security/graduated response. I don’t think we’re unclear with these, but would appreciate WG review.

Geographic precision/tracking:
We had non-normative text/examples around this, but we’ve subsequently removed the normative requirement. Geographic precision is now included as part of the deidentification non-normative text.

Introduction/scope:
Previously we had long, editorial sections for the introduction and scope section. I believe we’re better off without that level of writing, given that these drafts are for implementation purposes. My proposed updates on the scope section were discussed on a previous teleconference, diff available here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2014Dec/0005.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2014Dec/0005.html>

Thanks,
Nick


Received on Monday, 12 January 2015 23:28:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:25 UTC