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:
Related emails:
  1. Re: Agenda for 21 January 2012 TPE call - V03 (regrets) (from singer@apple.com on 2013-01-23)
  2. Re: Agenda for 21 January 2012 TPE call - V03 (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2013-01-23)
  3. Agenda for 21 January 2012 TPE call - V03 (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2013-01-22)
  4. Re: Towards closing the remaining issues in the TPE specification (from singer@apple.com on 2012-10-03)
  5. Re: Towards closing the remaining issues in the TPE specification (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-10-02)
  6. Towards closing the remaining issues in the TPE specification (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-10-01)
  7. More (mostly minor) edits to the exceptions API section (from singer@apple.com on 2012-08-09)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  10. 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)
  11. Re: Agenda for July 18, 2012 DNT WG Call on TPE (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-07-18)
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
  14. 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)
  15. Re: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-05-04)
  16. Re: explicit-explicit exception pairs (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-05-01)
  17. 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)
  18. Re: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from ifette@google.com on 2012-04-30)
  19. Re: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from ifette@google.com on 2012-04-25)
  20. RE: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com on 2012-04-25)
  21. Re: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-04-25)
  22. RE: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-04-20)
  23. agenda: 18 April 2012 call (from aleecia@aleecia.com on 2012-04-18)
  24. An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111) (from Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com on 2012-04-17)
  25. Issues mentioned in the TPE document, or non-closed in the database and applying to TPE (from singer@apple.com on 2012-04-10)
  26. TPE: Input for our discussions in DC (from mts-std@schunter.org on 2012-04-04)
  27. ISSUE-111 - requestSiteSpecificTrackingException (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-28)
  28. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-28)
  29. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from john@consumerwatchdog.org on 2012-03-28)
  30. 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)
  31. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-03-28)
  32. 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)
  33. 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)
  34. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from v.toubiana@free.fr on 2012-03-28)
  35. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-27)
  36. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from singer@apple.com on 2012-03-27)
  37. 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)
  38. 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)
  39. 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)
  40. 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)
  41. RE: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-23)
  42. 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)
  43. 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)
  44. Re: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from ifette@google.com on 2012-03-21)
  45. RE: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-21)
  46. Re: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from john@consumerwatchdog.org on 2012-03-21)
  47. Re: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from ifette@google.com on 2012-03-21)
  48. Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111) (from ifette@google.com on 2012-03-21)
  49. Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-19)
  50. RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group (from jccannon@microsoft.com on 2012-03-19)
  51. RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-18)
  52. Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-18)
  53. RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-18)
  54. Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-18)
  55. 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)
  56. 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)
  57. 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)
  58. Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from gelman@blurryedge.com on 2012-03-15)
  59. RE: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-15)
  60. 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)
  61. Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-15)
  62. RE: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-15)
  63. Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from jeff@democraticmedia.org on 2012-03-15)
  64. RE: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-15)
  65. Re: ISSUE-111, ad exchanges, web wide exception (from jeff@democraticmedia.org on 2012-03-15)
  66. 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)
  67. 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)
  68. 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)
  69. 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)
  70. 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)
  71. 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)
  72. 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)
  73. 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)
  74. 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)
  75. 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)
  76. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-03-13)
  77. 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)
  78. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from jccannon@microsoft.com on 2012-03-12)
  79. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from sid@mozilla.com on 2012-03-12)
  80. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-09)
  81. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-09)
  82. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-09)
  83. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-09)
  84. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-09)
  85. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-09)
  86. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-09)
  87. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-08)
  88. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-08)
  89. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-08)
  90. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-03-08)
  91. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from jmayer@stanford.edu on 2012-03-08)
  92. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
  93. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
  94. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
  95. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
  96. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
  97. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from gelman@blurryedge.com on 2012-03-08)
  98. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
  99. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-03-08)
  100. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
  101. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-03-08)
  102. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-03-08)
  103. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
  104. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
  105. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
  106. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
  107. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
  108. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from sharvey@google.com on 2012-03-08)
  109. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
  110. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-08)
  111. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com on 2012-03-08)
  112. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
  113. Re: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-03-07)
  114. RE: ISSUE-111 - Exceptions are broken (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-07)
  115. RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-07)
  116. Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-03-07)
  117. RE: set of exceptions (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-06)
  118. RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-06)
  119. Re: set of exceptions (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-03-06)
  120. Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-03-06)
  121. Re: Work ahead; volunteers? (from john@consumerwatchdog.org on 2012-03-06)
  122. RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-03-06)
  123. Re: JS Exception API [ISSUE-111], [ISSUE-112] (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-03-06)
  124. Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-03-06)
  125. 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)
  126. TPE: Work ahead; volunteers? (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-03-06)
  127. RE: JS Exception API [ISSUE-111], [ISSUE-112] (from kevsmith@adobe.com on 2012-03-01)
  128. Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from karld@opera.com on 2012-02-23)
  129. Re: ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from rigo@w3.org on 2012-02-22)
  130. Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-02-21)
  131. RE: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-02-21)
  132. Re: ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-02-21)
  133. PENDING REVIEW: Proposal to close a series of PENDING REVIEW Items (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-02-21)
  134. Agenda for 2012-Feb-22 call (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-02-21)
  135. Re: ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-02-13)
  136. ACTION-115: Write up counter-proposal to header with well-known URI (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-02-11)
  137. Agenda for 2012-02-01 call (V02: added more incoming issues with text) (from mts@zurich.ibm.com on 2012-01-31)
  138. ACTION-98: Bring input on ISSUE-111 to the group; otherwise it's closed (from wileys@yahoo-inc.com on 2012-01-30)
  139. 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)
  140. 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)
  141. 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)
  142. ISSUE-43, ACTION-60: let the user know their options when arriving with Do Not Track (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-01-30)
  143. Re: meaning of DNT 1 and DNT 0 when sent by user agents [ISSUE-78] (from npdoty@w3.org on 2012-01-20)
  144. diff of TPE editing since the FPWD (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-01-10)
  145. 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.

Matthias Schunter, 31 Jan 2012, 09:16:19

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.

Matthias Schunter, 21 Feb 2012, 16:32:47

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, 17:15:05

A 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.

Matthias Schunter, 30 Apr 2012, 20:15:55

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)

Matthias Schunter, 30 Apr 2012, 20:21:49

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, 21:05:46

so, 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.

David Singer, 13 Feb 2013, 17:21:11

Closed with the agreement than no "e" append/replace character was necessary, and a JavaScript confirmation API for exceptions.

Nick Doty, 13 Feb 2013, 17:25:39

Display change log ATOM feed

Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 111.html,v 1.1 2019/02/01 09:32:26 vivien Exp $