Re: Batch closing of TPE-related issues (response by April 16)

Hi Matthias,

On 161, the "!" signal, while we do seem to have consensus on the 
signal, I do not believe we have reached consensus on the precise 
meaning or the language describing it in the spec. Therefore, the issue 
should remain open.

-David

On 4/12/13 9:00 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> as part of our final cleanup in preparation of our next working draft, 
> I suggest to close the issues listed below.
>
> Please respond by April 16 if you cannot live with the proposed 
> resolution of those issues.
> If you do so, please include a justification and describe what concern 
> of yours is not addressed in
> the currently documented draft of the TPE.
>
> Regards,
>  matthias
>
> --------------
>
> ISSUE-112 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112>(edit) 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112/edit> 
> OPEN 	How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112> 	
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
>
> REASON:
> - We agreed to use cookie-matching-like wildcards and rules to allow
>   for code-reuse in user agents
> - This is reflected in the spec
>
> ISSUE-144 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144>(edit) 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144/edit> 	
> 	User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior while 
> granting and for future requests? 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144
>
> REASON: In the new exception model, user agents are required to 
> communicate the status of an exception.
>  The status may be changed by end users and no further requirements 
> are needed. This is reflected in the spec.
>
> NOTE: We still have an open issue whether user agents are required to 
> implement the exception API.
>
> ISSUE-161 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161>(edit) 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161/edit> 	
> 	o we need a tracking status value for partial compliance or rejecting 
> DNT? <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161
>
> RESOLUTION:
> - We defined a "!" indicator that says that the site is not claiming 
> to comply (e.g., maintenance / under construction)
>
> ISSUE-185 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185>(edit) 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185/edit>
> WebWide Not 	
> 	There should not be an API for web-wide exceptions 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/185
>
> RESOLUTION:
> - We reached agreement that there will be an API for web-side exceptions
>
> ISSUE-143 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143>(edit) 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143/edit>
> Reciprocal Consent 	
> 	Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed 
> consent from a user 
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143
>
> REASON:
> - We will have this discussion as part of ISSUE-194.
>
>
>