Re: tracking-ISSUE-279: word count? [TCS Last Call]

It's not totally clear what the suggested change is, besides cutting the document in half. Indeed, the Tracking Compliance and Scope document is longer than the EFF DNT Policy document. To some extent, that difference in word count is attributable to the examples and other non-normative explanatory text in the TCS specification, not unlike the FAQ that accompanies the EFF DNT Policy and is of comparable length.

Having a clear and readable document for implementers is certainly important; it's nice that we can publish in HTML, rather than plain text, for example. Rather than making changes to shorten the specification text, it might be more productive to collaborate on human-readable explanations or guides for implementers. We could use a wiki, spin up a Community Group, or use some other web platform documentation site for such resources.

Proposal: no change, but could start separate external documentation.

—npd

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 10:51 PM, Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> tracking-ISSUE-279: word count? [TCS Last Call]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/279
> 
> Raised by: Lee Tien
> On product: TCS Last Call
> 
> EFF has a concern/comment about the word count:
>> Wordcount: we tried hard to draft for concision; the EFF Do Not Track Policy is a bit less than half the length of the TCS last call draft.
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2015Oct/0009.html