Re: diff of TPE editing since the FPWD

An example of unnecessary ambiguity and complexity? I think it's 
obvious. I assume two things. First, that the determination of covered 
data usage and collection will be necessary with or without the 
party-based approach. Second, that the determination of covered usage 
and collection is alone sufficient. Therefore the party-based definition 
adds unnecessary and avoidable complexity. The ambiguity comes from the 
difficulty in making those party-based determinations. Our conversations 
on this point to date demonstrate this difficulty.

On 1/12/12 6:49 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * David Wainberg wrote:
>> Ed's question was "Is this "cross-site" discussion a debate about
>> substance, or only about terminology?" Perhaps I could have been more
>> direct, but my answer is that there is a substantive difference, and not
>> one of mere terminology. If it were mere terminology the terms would be
>> interchangeable in the spec, but they are not. The key difference I see
>> largely goes to the complexity of definition and implementation, rather
>> than to the expected end result for users, but to me that's a important
>> difference. A party-based definition will generate unnecessary and
>> avoidable ambiguity and complexity for the companies trying to adhere to
>> the standard.
> Could you walk us through an example scenario?

Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 20:21:23 UTC