W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2017

On roles, rules, and procedures

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 20:40:59 +0200
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3c3b2398-79ae-ffe7-6a1c-0dda0177939f@schunter.org>
Hi Folks,


thanks a lot for the interesting discussion.

A quick note on procedures.

I tend to agree that our life is easier if each party only represents
itself.

I understand that this has the drawback that parties who choose not to
participate in the WG are not represented. However, it is hard enough to
ensure that we find a solution that balances the requirements of
constituents that actually choose to participate.

I hope this is fine with all you.

Furthermore, I would be reluctant to add machine-readable attributes
unless we can clearly define why they are essential for the user agent
and how exactly the user agent behavior would change.

As mentioned earlier, we are at the "almost final" stage and adding
"nice to have" and "potentially informative" fields is out of scope by now.

I actually liked the suggestion to document "EU compliance best
practices" that is a first stab at defining fields and procedures that
help EU sites with their compliance. This document will then evolve
along with the regulations.

If, e.g., we believe that certain context needs to be stored for
consent, then we can add an optional "context" field (e.g. JSON) that is
then further defined in this other document.

Again: So far, I have not seen a field that needs to be processed by the
user agent (please educate me if I overlooked something).

Let us discuss some more tomorrow.


Regards,
matthias
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2017 18:41:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:34 UTC