- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:52:01 +0200
- To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Shane,
On Saturday 02 June 2012 00:41:33 Shane Wiley wrote:
> I disagree both with your position and your tone - please lessen the
> drama.
My apologies if the language sounded offensive. This wasn't intended.
>
> The Working Group had not formally begun by Princeton if I remember
> correctly - the first official meeting was at MIT a bit afterwards. I'll
> ask Nick and the Co-Chairs to confirm. Therefore any "agreement" was not
> by the working group. Further, I don't believe the solidarity of your
> belief in that agreement has been captured in draft text. If it has,
> could you please point this out? You are using terms that are yet to be
> defined ("track") and if you believe no data collection is possible, then
> why are we discussing "Permitted Uses"? These carve-outs highlight the
> divide between the existence of data and its use (case in point).
Ok, fair point. I don't want to go into the game of precluding things by
pointing to old minutes and then debate the validity of those minutes.
Because that doesn't help the consensus either. I don't want to create a
trap here. But I think we agreed that receiving DNT;1 includes some
collection limitations. Now you're right to point out that this somewhat
overlaps with the 6 weeks full log collection. I need to verify what is
already in the Specification. My point was to the principle (my bad to have
done that) of having some collection limitation in case of DNT;1 and that we
can't make DNT;1 just a pure! use limitation. Because that wouldn't work
nowhere but in the US IMHO. And I'm not even sure about it there.
Rigo
Rigo
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2012 14:52:41 UTC