W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking-lists@w3.org > April 2012

RE: Issue 2: Use of the term "3rd-party"

From: Andy Zeigler <andyzei@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:12:15 +0000
To: "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>, "public-tracking-lists@w3.org" <public-tracking-lists@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9A7C781439ECF9429A233C0942BAAB6F0A1B37@BY2PRD0310MB366.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hey Rob,

Great point. I haven't seen very many implementations that use IP address "in the wild", but the list format can accommodate IP addresses. There is no special affordance in the syntax like there is for domain names (i.e. allow/block by subnet mask), but regular string matching rules (+-) can block IPs.

At a minimum, the spec should clearly call out the expected behavior with IP addresses -- I'll add an issue for that.

Thanks,

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:00 PM
To: public-tracking-lists@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue 2: Use of the term "3rd-party"

On 9-4-2012 4:33, Andy Zeigler wrote:
> The reality is that domain names, and not schemes and ports, establish business relationships. By eliminating scheme/port, you get a cleaner list format that's easier to implement.
I have observed ip-address only tracking sources in the Netherlands. Can the list accommodate ip ranges as well? Or is this an edge-case and better to be dealt with in eg a /etc/hosts file.

Rob
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:14:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:35:39 UTC