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

notes from TPE breakout section

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:17:48 -0700
Message-Id: <AB9793C2-D89C-437A-8BD1-B3819531F9E1@gbiv.com>
To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
I thought JC already sent these notes to the list, but it seems to have
been offlist instead.  Here are JC's notes as text with [my notes].

=====
1. If the header response values 1 and S are the same why have both?

Discussion is about how to treat a service provider.
Should an obligation be placed on the first party for SP compliance?
It was decided to leave the S designation [for WG review]

2. A tracking status resource would contain human readable text
that will be stored in a well-known location with a possible hierarchy
for different values. It may point to other pages or content.

3. A response header can be sent to indicate that tracking is occurring
or not or to indicated that the tracking status resource has changed.
This is indicated with an “update-needed” flag. This would only happen
during a session. E.G. the user provides opt-in consent at the site during the session.

4. How should a resource like Google-maps be treated? The Bing search box
could have the same issue. The suggestion is to provide a different URI
based on whether a resource is used in a first or third-party context.

5. Each resource being loaded by a page should have a different URI and
can be viewed as a third-part resource. Interactions with the resources
should also access a separate resource that can be viewed as a first party.

6. The proposal seems unworkable for some complex scenarios. Heather will
[take action item to produce] an alternate proposal.
=====

....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 16:18:20 UTC

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