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

Re: ISSUE-130: Web-wide exceptions - iare there objections to permitting those?

From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:58:04 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2974DFC3-ECA1-4572-B3F9-5557D5B81176@w3.org>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Alexandros Deliyannis <Alexandros.Deliyannis@nielsen.com>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
I agree that conceptually it might make sense for users to configure Web-wide exceptions (DNT:0 for a particular third-party domain wherever it's seen), but I don't believe that there's consensus that we need an API for this in our specifications.

For example, the current text suggests that it should be possible but should be left up to user agent configuration rather than the specification.
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#web-wide-exceptions

We're currently waiting on ACTION-120 (open on ISSUE-113) to define the language for a JavaScript API to prompt for Web-wide exceptions and how that would work. (This action was originally opened on Shane in February, and then I've eventually transitioned it to Alex D, who asked for an extension to this week. I'm still willing to help anyone draft the JavaScript language here, though I personally suspect that the current text is sufficient.)

If ISSUE-130 is just asking whether this configuration should be possible for a user (through whatever mechanism), then I agree we should close it. (If we leave it as on open question for user agents, for example, then we don't need to answer what its EU-jurisdiction implications are.) If it's an issue as to whether we need a JavaScript API for those exceptions and how that API should look, then I think we can close 130 as a duplicate of ISSUE-113 which remains open until we have a text alternative to the current text in the spec.

Thanks,
Nick

On Apr 5, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:

> Matthias,
> 
> It was my understanding we had consensus to allow this conceptually.  
> 
> User Granted Exceptions  (Exception Type:  1st Party / 3rd Party Domain Pair)
> 
> Site-Specific Exception:  Known 1st Party / Known 3rd Party
> Site-Wide Exception:  Known 1st Party / *
> Web-Wide Exception:  * / Known 3rd Party
> 
> - Shane
> 
> 
> Mar 28, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Matthias Schunter wrote:
> 
>> Hi Folks,
>> 
>> from the lack of discussion on the mailing list, I gather that granting
>> a web-wide exception to
>> (e.g.) a producer of a widget does not raise huge concerns.
>> 
>> Is there actually consensus on allowing such an exeption? If yes, I'd
>> like to close ISSUE-130.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> matthias
>> 
> 
> Lauren Gelman
> BlurryEdge Strategies
> 415-627-8512
> gelman@blurryedge.com
> http://blurryedge.com
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 00:58:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:27 UTC