- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:02:16 -0700
- To: Nick Doty <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu>
- Cc: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> On Oct 26, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Nick Doty <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > Thanks Matthias for leading this and Mike (and others, still catching up on this thread!) for the useful comments. > > On Compliance, I think the phrasing of "maintenance mode" is likely to be misunderstood, and that some of the proposed details are more specific than necessary. I believe our agreed plan on the call was that the TCS would not be the focus of our work, but that it was at the stage of gathering implementation feedback and would be progressed if there was sufficient implementation and interest (or moved to Note status to end work if we conclude there isn't interest in implementation). While "maintenance mode" is not a well-defined term at W3C, I expect many people would read that not as gathering implementation experience, but instead as fixing errors in a completed specification. > > While it might be useful to provide some non-normative documents that let people know how to implement Do Not Track and about existing compliance regimes, I don't think we need to commit to a particular WG Note in the charter. > > Cheers, > Nick +1 ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2016 17:02:46 UTC