[WG-InfoSharing] Fwd: Compliance CR pre-publication test

mary hodder hodder at gmail.com
Mon Mar 7 13:45:11 CST 2016

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>
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Compliance CR pre-publication test
To: "public-tracking at w3.org" <public-tracking at w3.org>
Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer at w3.org>


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.


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:

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,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20160307/a32fc820/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 506 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20160307/a32fc820/attachment.sig>

More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list