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

Re: Considering browser vendor as a third party

From: Vincent Toubiana <v.toubiana@free.fr>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:52:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4FD4A6A8.2020100@free.fr>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
CC: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>, "TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT)" <Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com>
Shane,

I believe Justin explanation on this point makes sens, we're not 
interacting *with* the browser, we're interacting with a 1st party 
website *through* the browser. Hence this question might not be out of 
scope.

Vincent
> I agree the question is a valid one.  But as the group has already discussed "meaningful interaction" as a condition to move a widget from a 3rd party context to a 1st party context, why wouldn't that apply in this case?  If you agree, then web browsers would be considered 1st parties and are largely out of scope for the TPWG specification.
>
> - Shane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:52 PM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Cc: David Singer; Tom Lowenthal; TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT)
> Subject: Re: Considering browser vendor as a third party
>
> On Thursday 07 June 2012 14:44:37 David Singer wrote:
>> I don't think that's the question.  What is the status of the
>> browser *vendor*'s online site?
> Vincent raised an important question: What happens if the browser
> phones home. I hear all saying this is out of scope and will be
> determined by the applicable jurisdiction. Fine. But it was very
> important to raise that question IMHO.
>
> Rigo
>
>
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2012 13:53:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:30 UTC