- From: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:57:52 +0200
- To: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Tamir, ISSUE-75: How do companies claim exemptions and is that technical or not? is indirectly affected in the following way: The agreements below say that there should be a technical mechanism (via Javascript) to ask for exceptions. As a consequence, we specified such an API into the spec. I.e., indirectly wrt ISSUE-75 we decided that there should be at least this technical approach. This does not preclude any other approaches. In particular we also have agreement to allow out of band consent. Does this answer your question and mitigate your concern? Regards, matthias On 20/08/2012 20:52, Tamir Israel wrote: > Can someone please confirm that these issues (and particularly section > 5.3.3 of the TPE) do not foreclose or pre-decide ISSUE-152 and > ISSUE-75 (out of band consent)? > > Thanks, > Tamir > > On 8/15/2012 12:16 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote: >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/47 >> ISSUE-47: Should the response from the server indicate a policy that >> describes the DNT practices of the server? >> RESOLUTION: >> - A policy attribute at the well-known URI may point to a site-wide >> policy (Section 5.4.1) >> - The response header may identify a more specific policy at a >> different URL (Section 5.3.2) > >> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/107 >> ISSUE-107: Exact format of the response header? >> RESOLUTION: >> - Revised response header values in Section 5.2 and syntax in 5.3
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2012 06:58:14 UTC