ISSUE-111: Signaling state/existence of site-specific exceptions
Signaling state/existence of site-specific exceptions
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
- Raised by:
- Nick Doty
- Opened on:
- 2012-01-06
- Description:
- The (revised) issue addresses the question how a server can find out the existence of site-specific exceptions. We currently discuss two ways:
- A value DNT;2 where a user agent signals that an exception occured
- Using DNT;0 to signal an exception
- Providing a javascript API to allow the server to query exceptions
This broader discussion supersedes ISSUE-109 - Related Actions Items:
ACTION-188 on Matthias Schunter to Cleanup material on ISSUE-111 to prepare for next week's discussion - due 2012-04-25, closed- Related emails:
- Re: Agenda for 21 January 2012 TPE call - V03 (regrets) (from singer@apple.com on 2013-01-23)
- Re: Agenda for 21 January 2012 TPE call - V03 (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2013-01-23)
- Agenda for 21 January 2012 TPE call - V03 (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2013-01-22)
- Re: Towards closing the remaining issues in the TPE specification (from singer@apple.com on 2012-10-03)
- Re: Towards closing the remaining issues in the TPE specification (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-10-02)
- Towards closing the remaining issues in the TPE specification (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-10-01)
- More (mostly minor) edits to the exceptions API section (from singer@apple.com on 2012-08-09)
- Re: ISSUE-116: How can we build a JS DOM property which doesn't allow inline JS to receive mixed signals? (from cblouch@aol.com on 2012-07-20)
- Re: ISSUE-116: How can we build a JS DOM property which doesn't allow inline JS to receive mixed signals? (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-07-18)
- Re: ISSUE-116: How can we build a JS DOM property which doesn't allow inline JS to receive mixed signals? (from ed@felten.com on 2012-07-18)
- Re: Agenda for July 18, 2012 DNT WG Call on TPE (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-07-18)
- Re: ISSUE-116: How can we build a JS DOM property which doesn't allow inline JS to receive mixed signals? (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-07-17)
- Re: ISSUE-116: How can we build a JS DOM property which doesn't allow inline JS to receive mixed signals? (from singer@apple.com on 2012-05-30)
- ISSUE-116: How can we build a JS DOM property which doesn't allow inline JS to receive mixed signals? (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-05-30)
- Re: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-05-04)
- Re: explicit-explicit exception pairs (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-05-01)
- An update on ISSUE-111: How user-agent can signal DNT exceptions to the site (ACTION-188) (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-04-30)
- Re: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from ifette@google.com on 2012-04-30)
- Re: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from ifette@google.com on 2012-04-25)
- RE: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com on 2012-04-25)
- Re: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-04-25)
- RE: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-04-20)
- agenda: 18 April 2012 call (from aleecia@aleecia.com on 2012-04-18)
- An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com on 2012-04-17)
- Issues mentioned in the TPE document, or non-closed in the database and applying to TPE (from singer@apple.com on 2012-04-10)
- TPE: Input for our discussions in DC (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-04-04)
- ISSUE-111 - requestSiteSpecificTrackingException (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-28)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-28)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from john@consumerwatchdog.org on 2012-03-28)
- RE: My summary of ISSUE-111 and ISSUE-129 and ISSUE-130 - Input for TPE part of today's telco (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-28)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-03-28)
- My summary of ISSUE-111 and ISSUE-129 and ISSUE-130 - Input for TPE part of today's telco (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-03-28)
- My summary of ISSUE-111 and ISSUE-129 and ISSUE-130 - Input for TPE part of today's telco (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-03-28)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from v.toubiana@free.fr on 2012-03-28)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-27)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from singer@apple.com on 2012-03-27)
- ISSUE-111: Starting sub-discussions on global exceptions (thisthirdparty, on all sites [ISSUE-130]) and wildcard exceptions (anythirdparty, on a given site; ISSUE-129]) (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-03-26)
- tracking-ISSUE-130: Site-specific Exceptions b) Global Exception for Third Parties (thisthirdparty, anywhere) [refining ISSUE-111] [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-03-26)
- tracking-ISSUE-129: Site-specific Exceptions a) Blanket Exceptions (mysite, any-third party) [refining ISSUE-111] [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-03-26)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-23)
- RE: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-23)
- RE: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-23)
- RE: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-23)
- Re: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from ifette@google.com on 2012-03-21)
- RE: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-21)
- Re: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from john@consumerwatchdog.org on 2012-03-21)
- Re: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from ifette@google.com on 2012-03-21)
- Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from ifette@google.com on 2012-03-21)
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-19)
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group (from jccannon@microsoft.com on 2012-03-19)
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-18)
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-18)
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-18)
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-18)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-03-17)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-03-17)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-17)
- Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from gelman@blurryedge.com on 2012-03-15)
- RE: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-15)
- RE: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-15)
- Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-15)
- RE: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-15)
- Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from jeff@democraticmedia.org on 2012-03-15)
- RE: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-15)
- Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from jeff@democraticmedia.org on 2012-03-15)
- RE: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US]) (from bs3131@att.com on 2012-03-15)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from sid@mozilla.com on 2012-03-14)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-03-14)
- Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from sid@mozilla.com on 2012-03-14)
- RE: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-14)
- A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114) (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-03-14)
- RE: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US]) (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-14)
- Re: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US]) (from jeff@democraticmedia.org on 2012-03-14)
- RE: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US]) (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-14)
- Re: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US]) (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-03-14)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-03-13)
- Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-03-13)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from jccannon@microsoft.com on 2012-03-12)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from sid@mozilla.com on 2012-03-12)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-09)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-09)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-09)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-09)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-09)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-09)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-09)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from gelman@blurryedge.com on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
- Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-03-07)
- RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-07)
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-07)
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-03-07)
- RE: set of exceptions (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-06)
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-06)
- Re: set of exceptions (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-06)
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-03-06)
- Re: Work ahead; volunteers? (from john@consumerwatchdog.org on 2012-03-06)
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-06)
- Re: JS Exception API [ISSUE-111], [ISSUE-112] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-03-06)
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-03-06)
- How can a server understand the site-specific exceptions that are stored in a user agent (was: Work ahead; volunteers?) (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-03-06)
- TPE: Work ahead; volunteers? (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-03-06)
- RE: JS Exception API [ISSUE-111], [ISSUE-112] (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-01)
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from karld@opera.com on 2012-02-23)
- Re: ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-02-22)
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-02-21)
- RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-02-21)
- Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-02-21)
- PENDING REVIEW: Proposal to close a series of PENDING REVIEW Items (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-02-21)
- Agenda for 2012-Feb-22 call (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-02-21)
- Re: ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-02-13)
- ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-02-11)
- Agenda for 2012-02-01 call (V02: added more incoming issues with text) (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-01-31)
- ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-01-30)
- RE: ISSUE-43, ACTION-60: let the user know their options when arriving with Do Not Track (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-01-30)
- Re: ISSUE-43, ACTION-60: let the user know their options when arriving with Do Not Track (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-01-30)
- Re: ISSUE-43, ACTION-60: let the user know their options when arriving with Do Not Track (from singer@apple.com on 2012-01-30)
- ISSUE-43, ACTION-60: let the user know their options when arriving with Do Not Track (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-01-30)
- Re: meaning of DNT 1 and DNT 0 when sent by user agents [ISSUE-78] (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-01-20)
- diff of TPE editing since the FPWD (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-01-10)
- tracking-ISSUE-111: Different DNT values to signify existence of associated exceptions [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-01-06)
Related notes:
2012-01-31 Proposal "A" by Shane:
<non-normative>
To better arm Publishers with the ability to distinguish between users who have a general DNT signal activated (DNT:1) and those who have also provided for a Site Specific Exception for their site, it would helpful for a different signal to be provided in the later case. This approach will help reduce site-specific exception list queries, as well as, allow for a cleaner site-specific exception process on “first use†scenarios.
<normative>
Where available, User Agents SHOULD provide 1st parties with a distinguishing signal to alert them that Site-Specific Exceptions exist for the 1st party. If a User Agent supports this functionality, it must reply with a DNT:2 signal when appropriate.
2012-02-21 (MTS): This issue has been resolved by the response header proposal in the current WD:
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html
I did not receive any feedback on this section and I plan to change the status of this issue to CLOSED.
2012-03-06: Old description: Should the user agent send a different DNT value to a first party site if there exist site-specific exceptions for that first party? (e.g. DNT:2 implies "I have Do Not Track enabled but grant permissions to some third parties while browsing this domain", DNT:3 implies "I grant you a web-wide tracking exception")
Matthias Schunter, 6 Mar 2012, 15:26:48[ifette]: subsumes issue 59
18 Apr 2012, 17:15:05A proposed summary text for DNT values to signal site-specific preferences:
1 = no known exceptions for you
0 = You have an exeption (sent to 1st or 3rd parties) and semantics
1st: You have an exeption but there is no "*" exception
[You may poll for details]
3rd: You either have a web-wide exception or your
1st party got you exempted.
2 = "*" site-wide exception (sent to 1st party saying that all its
third parties are exempted)
Note that this text assumes that explicit-explicit exception pairs are part of the API.
We seem to have agrement that user agents may signal user-granted exception status to sites.
Postponed ISSUE-111 until ISSUE-140 has been resolved:
- Find out what exceptions we have
- Then (later) design the signaling (=revisit ISSUE-111)
2013-01-23: During today's call we decided to postpone until the exception handling has stabilised. Once this has happened we decide whether we need signals.
Matthias Schunter, 23 Jan 2013, 21:05:46so, we could signal DNT:0 (general preference) and DNT:0e (for an exception), but no-one seems to see it needed now.
separately, we could signal DNT:<something>s to top-level origins to say that one or more site exceptions exist for your site, but the confirm API is way clearer and more diagnostic.
Closed with the agreement than no "e" append/replace character was necessary, and a JavaScript confirmation API for exceptions.
Nick Doty, 13 Feb 2013, 17:25:39Display change log