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

Re: explicit-explicit exception pairs

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 17:09:36 +0200
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Cc: ifette@google.com, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
Message-ID: <2957616.z7nHKmNzhZ@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
On Monday 30 April 2012 13:55:44 Jonathan Mayer wrote:
>  If a website learns the browser doesn't support its preferred exception
> type, it can fall back to a different exception type or an out-of-band
> exception.

This mainly says: You can either agree on */* or try some out-of-band-
undefined-legalese-click-wrap. I don't like the latter as it reads like an 
affidavit of (technical) means to me. IMHO this is harmful to the consent 
mechanism, especially as we don't know what * is. Would you write a blank 
check like this? (and yes, provider P can have subprovider S who can have 
subprovider X, but site A still knows it uses provider P and declare it and 
being responsible for using P)

This is about forcing bundles or not forcing bundles. I can understand that 
(and why) some people are not really happy with unbundling and raisin 
picking. But we risk to not align well with the data self-determination 
paradigm if the bundle is too obviously tied to a certain goal. In this 
case, there is a general take-it or leave-it. This fits some preferences 
well but not others. How can we accommodate both?  I said by allowing 
granularity and accumulation of the variety into a bundle, but that the 
bundle isn't created at Specification-writing time, but at site-definition 

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 15:10:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:48 UTC