Re: Issue 12: Javascript API to return promises instead of nothing.

Vincent,
We discussed this at length in the Working Group and agreed the 3rd party would need to coordinate their consent request with their 1st party partners.  They could of course leverage a pop-up dialogue as part of their ad/widget/content but they would likely upset their 1st party partner if this was done with no coordination and with no expectation from the 1st party partner that a user experience was going to change outside of their control.
- Shane Shane Wiley
VP, Privacy Policy
Yahoo

      From: TOUBIANA Vincent <vtoubiana@cnil.fr>
 To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>; 'David Singer' <singer@mac.com> 
Cc: 'Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)' <mts-std@schunter.org>; "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
 Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:53 AM
 Subject: RE: Issue 12: Javascript API to return promises instead of nothing.
   
Hi David and Mike,

I agree with Mike, the Exception API is AFAIU necessary to obtain consent through DNT. One of the question related to the new ePrivacy regulation is how third parties can obtain consent, it was apparently raised during a Q&A session and the answer provided was "Defer to the market" [1]. It would be useful to have a DNT implementation addressing this.

The regulation is also pushing from some changes in the browsers, especially to provide information and obtain consent when user first install or update a browser (see article 10 of the current draft: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=41241). This push for a significant update may solve the "After you" problem.

Regards,

Vincent


[1] The only source is a tweet, the stream is no longer available https://twitter.com/Andreea_L2/status/821328127653711872

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Mike O'Neill [mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com] 
Envoyé : mercredi 25 janvier 2017 22:59
À : 'David Singer' <singer@mac.com>
Cc : 'Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)' <mts-std@schunter.org>; public-tracking@w3.org
Objet : RE: Issue 12: Javascript API to return promises instead of nothing.

Hi David,

If you mean  the JS API, the relevant EU legal requirement is for "freely given, informed, *specific*, unambiguous" consent (in ePrivacy via "terminal settings"), which the API provides.
Without it DNT has very little point IMO.
Moreover we already have 2 independent interoperable implementations.

Anyway the point about promises is to make the API more usable for the modern web platform, as I have already written about ad nauseam. I only raised it again because you mentioned as something we could do as a quick win. The API still works without it, even if it irritates the developers who will have to add the asynchronous capability themselves (with unnecessary extra latency)

-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:15 AM
To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Cc: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue 12: Javascript API to return promises instead of nothing.

Hi Mike

I guess I am finding it hard to get enthusiastic about fixing a feature that’s very likely to be marked as “at risk of removal” in the CR and removed through lack of interoperable support in the PR.


> On Jan 25, 2017, at 9:03 , Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
> wrote:
>
> I don't think changing the API to return a promise changes much, it 
> only affects the IE implementation which already does not comply with 
> the rec anyway (does not support navigator.doNotTrack for a start).
> Bouncer will be fixed to comply with whatever we agree in a jiffy.
>
> But we may want other changes anyway so why don't we schedule a drop 
> dead date for all the TPE changes we agree on,  say june/july, giving 
> us a couple months or so  for the transition request.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) 
> [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:31 PM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 12: Javascript API to return promises instead of 
> nothing.
>
> Hi TPWW,
>
>
> BERT: this is very useful information.
>
> Here are two process suggestions.
>
> -------------
> ANOTHER TRANSITION?
>
> We should try to balance efficiency/speed and a useful outcome.
> For me, being required to issue another transition request would not 
> be a show-stopper.
> I guess it also would not cause huge delay (say more than 1 month), 
> won't it?
>
> What we could do is triage changes according to two criteria:
>
> (a) Are they essential to reach our goal or nice to have?
> (b) Are they substantial or editorial?
>
> If we do not have essential changes that are substantial, we will not 
> need to take the burden of another transition.
> We we do, there is no way around it.
>
> -----
> IMPLEMENTATION/INTEROP
>
> We should soon document our implementation / interop test plans and 
> discuss them in the group and then with the director.
> Once we all have a joint understanding of the plans and informal OK 
> that the plans are likely to meet the W3C requirements, then we are 
> good to go.,
>
>
> What do you think? Any other feedback?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> matthias
>
>
>
> On 24.01.2017 14:45, Bert Bos wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:45:56 AM CET Schunter, Matthias wrote:
>>> Hi Roy,
>>>
>>> PS: As far as I know, W3C now allows to change the spec while 
>>> iterating in the candidate recommendation state. I.e. no need to go 
>>> back to WD even if we introduce changes to the API.
>> Yes, but the exact process depends on the kind of changes:
>>
>> Republishing a CR with only editorial changes simply requires a WG 
>> decision and can be done as often as the WG wishes. It needs the 
>> Webmaster's help, so only on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but otherwise no 
>> need to talk to anybody.
>>
>> The same holds for republishing a CR after removing features that 
>> were already marked explicitly as "at risk".
>>
>> The WG can also decide at any time to republish the CR as a WD.
>>
>> But republishing a CR with "substantive changes" requires writing a 
>> new Transition Request (with all the usual things that go into such a
>> request) and waiting for Director's approval. If the changes are 
>> small, such approval is likely to be quick, though.
>>
>> "Substantive changes" are changes that affect conformance or add new
>> features: i.e., any changes that can make an implementation that used 
>> to
>
>> be conforming now non-conforming, or vice-versa.
>>
>>
>> I haven't looked at the change itself, but based on Roy's e-mail 
>> below, it seems to be a change that affects conformance. And so it 
>> requires writing a new Transition Request if we want the updated spec 
>> to
> be a CR.
>>
>> I can help writing such a Transition Request, but I can't do it on my 
>> own. I don't know enough about the history of the spec and its 
>> implementations yet.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:15 AM
>>> To: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
>>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) 
>>> <public-tracking@w3.org> Subject: Re: Issue 12: Javascript API to 
>>> return promises instead of nothing.
>>>
>>> Umm, the downside is that it is a normative change to the API, which 
>>> means we go back to WD status and have zero implementations.
>>>
>>> I want commitments from browsers to implement this change before we 
>>> make it. Right now we should assume the entire API will be removed.
>>>
>>> ....Roy
>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 3:20 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) 
>>>> <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sites can use our javascript API to register site-wide and web-wide 
>>>> exceptions. Currently the corresponding calls do not return any 
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> Mike proposed to return promises. These would allow the engine to 
>>>> call-back to a site once it has processed a javascript request.
>>>> This renders our API more asynchronous.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO there does not be a downside to this proposal. Mike posted the 
>>>> changed javascript API here: https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/12
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless somebody objects before our next call, I suggest to 
>>>> introduce this change to our API.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> matthias
>>> Intel Deutschland GmbH
>>> Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
>>> Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
>>> Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter 
>>> Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau Registered Office:
>>> Munich Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
>>
>>
>> Bert
>
>
>
>

Dave Singer

singer@mac.com