[WG-InfoSharing] Fwd: Compliance CR pre-publication test
npdoty at ischool.berkeley.edu
Mon Mar 7 16:40:02 CST 2016
Apologies, but please don't use the link in the previous email as a draft of the current Tracking Compliance work at W3C; it's a pre-publication test for review by the Working Group and explicitly not a version to be cited.
You can see the latest editor's draft of the Tracking Compliance and Scope specification here:
And the latest stable version is the Last Call Working Draft, available here:
We hope to have a stable Candidate Recommendation published soon, which is likely to be basically the same text as the editor's draft.
> On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:45 AM, mary hodder <hodder at gmail.com> wrote:
> HI All,
> Regarding User Submitted Terms, I'm forwarding the following email (Nick is an editor on this) on the current state of Do Not Track standard at WC3.
> The first link is their latest draft and is interesting as a model for us, as they finish up their draft standard.
> Note that as they go through the standards process, I'll submit their DNT standard to IDESG as well.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nick Doty <npdoty at ischool.berkeley.edu <mailto:npdoty at ischool.berkeley.edu>>
> Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 1:48 PM
> Subject: Compliance CR pre-publication test
> To: "public-tracking at w3.org <mailto:public-tracking at w3.org>" <public-tracking at w3.org <mailto:public-tracking at w3.org>>
> Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer at w3.org <mailto:wseltzer at w3.org>>
> Hi TPWG,
> In prepping the Compliance document for a transition call with the Director and publication as a Candidate Recommendation, I've prepared a pre-publication test of the CR format to see what it would look like.
> To repeat, this is not an official CR, this is a test. You might notice first of all that the formatting is different from other documents we've published; that's because there is a new stylesheet being used for all Recommendation-track documents that this automatically uses. I think it looks cleaner, and even has a nice Table of Contents sidebar when the window is wide enough for it.
> You can check the status of the document section; although I think the paragraphs would be in a slightly different order to satisfy pubrules; that should be an accurate explanation of the status of the work. I've created a wiki page which we could use as the implementation report, as we've been doing with the TPE.
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/TCS_Implementation_Report <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/TCS_Implementation_Report>
> Following the model of the TPE, I expect that the CR would end no earlier than 3 months away, and that we wouldn't anticipate having sufficient implementation experience until 3 months after that. The actual length of the Candidate Recommendation phase will of course depend on the actual work of adopting and implementing Compliance and documentation in an implementation report.
> Implementers of the Compliance specification (as opposed to the companion TPE specification) are servers only, not user agents. Implementation will consist in adopting and claiming adherence to the Compliance specification. Testing and documentation will require verification of compliance requirements via, for example, published statements, rather than executed software test cases. As a similar example, see the Website Tests in the Geolocation Implementation Report:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-orientation-event-20110628/Implementation-Report.html <https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-orientation-event-20110628/Implementation-Report.html>
> We didn't specify any features as at risk, so I expect the typical exit criteria would apply:
> * Multiple (at least two), interoperable implementations of each feature
> Some of the implementation data on the TPE wiki page that describes server-side implementations might be a start already, although I'm not sure if any/many of those server-side implementations are claiming adherence to any particular version of Tracking Compliance and Scope.
> Wendy, as Team Contact, will be handling the CR transition scheduling and meeting with the Director.
> Hope this helps,
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the WG-InfoSharing