How to get implementations remains the big question. It seems browsers don't want to spend much effort on the API and a UI when it is not clear how many servers will implement DNT.
The old WebEx reservation disappeared. There is now a new one:
mikeoneill: I reduced the API calls from 6 to 3 and all return the same response type.
… Now has a new property in the Bag to distinguish webWide from site-specific.
<fielding> Mike is talking about the pull request at https://github.com/w3c/dnt/pull/45
<fielding> Right, ednotes are not published by CR
mikeoneill: Roy put in a note about not understanding a sentence.
fielding: Maybe just remove that sentence. It doesn't seem to matter.
shane: Like David, I'd need more time to review the changes.
fielding: It's not in the document yet, it's mike's propoasl.
bert: is an API chnage possible at all at this point?
<wileys> In the promise structure it appears the UGEs have been collapsed with a boolean for web-wide or not, correct?
bert: roy, your opinion on mike's API?
fielding: my goal is to get implementation commitments.
<fielding> I haven't had a chance to go through it in detail, but my preference remains to get an indication by browsers first and then go to CR. But I will defer to the WG.
bert: what does the ed. note in 7.3 mean?
fielding: Not really explained in the spec.
mikeoneill: There is something in the wiki. Could maybe copy that.
fielding: Anything, from wiki or mail.
… need more detail than the current one sentence at the start.
<fielding> earlier, Mike pointed out the comment on https://w3c.github.io/dnt/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#exception-checking
mikeoneill: I can find text.
<fielding> ... about none of us knowing what the last sentence means in that section.
mikeoneill: Section 7.6, doNotTrack property is not redundant. Just keep it.
fielding: I remember now why the remark is there.
mikeoneill: I have implemented it, it is not hard.
fielding: property is generated dynamically for each navigator window.
mikeoneill: Every context has its own property.
… E.g., an iframe. Have to be able to find the value without bouncing a request to a server.
fielding: I think the need is reasonable, but the spec doesn't reflect that.
mikeoneill: I could make some text.
fielding: If you can describe it.
Action: mikeoneill: describe doNotTrack property purpose and implementation
<trackbot> Error finding 'mikeoneill'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/users>.
mikeoneill: "Expires" property: roy says it should be removed, but it is still in HTTP.
fielding: Yes, for legacy reasons. But if we have maxAge, expires is not needed.
mikeoneill: It is not much cost to implement.
fielding: Date parsing is actually expensive.
mikeoneill: Yes, but that code is there already.
fielding: No implems yet, we can decide. But we need more than 2 people with an opinion.
mikeoneill: There are implems.
shane: Expires is clearly understood, but maxAge serves the same pupose.
mikeoneill: The removal of expires is an easier chnage than the change to Promises was.
Resolved: remove "expires"
Action: fielding to remove Expires from API in favor of just using maxAge
<trackbot> Created ACTION-474 - Remove expires from api in favor of just using maxage [on Roy Fielding - due 2017-07-24].
bert: Do we need to mention DNT-extension as at risk (issue 48)?
Action: fielding to rephrase "at risk" on DNT-extensions
<trackbot> Created ACTION-475 - Rephrase "at risk" on dnt-extensions [on Roy Fielding - due 2017-07-24].
fielding: We can republish the CR instead. But there seems no reason to mark it at risk at present.
mikeoneill: Back to API:
… Re the duplets, I made a variable domain.
fielding: Will have a look, haven't had time to read it.
mikeoneill: [Something about resolving a Promise]
fielding: Probably editorial. Web Platforms specs typically specify an algorithm for Promises.
mikeoneill: I can make a pull request for next week.
bert: how much time do we need for review & editing?
mikeoneill: Most seems to be editorial.
<rvaneijk> Q: what is the consequence of a revision to the API for the process?
shane: browsers want to know that servers will implement before they spend resources. Move to Promises is big.
… I don't have enough feedback.
mikeoneill: Promises are in the spec.
fielding: yes, that was already decided,
shane: OK, so I'll need to talk to my team.
bert: How many weeks do we want for review?
shane: We first need the editorial changes in the spec. And then about 2 weeks after that.
… And if no comments in those two weeks, that implies acceptance.
fielding: I can do work this week only.
mikeoneill: I can do my text next Monday.
<rvaneijk> sorry, soundcard problem
<rvaneijk> would it require new implementations?
<fielding> I think further changes would be bound by existing implementations. Right now we are not bound because the Promises changes.
<rvaneijk> ok, tnx
No scribenick or scribe found. Guessed: bert