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

Re: explicit-explicit exception pairs

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 22:25:39 +0200
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1766605.iGouSBEQLk@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Shane, 

I'm surprised to hear that from you because in order to get a web-wide or 
even a site-wide exception, you need this granularity anyway. I also not 
that a consent mechanism could not work that way as the object of the 
consent would be open ended and thus undefined. If you only say * and don't 
tell what it means, there can't be any consent or agreement. 

Best, 

Rigo

On Thursday 03 May 2012 10:44:34 Shane Wiley wrote:
> I know we're not supposed to add "+1" but I do want to pile on a bit here
> to support Kevin and Ian in that I can't see the value in overloading the
> standard to add such a high-level of complexity to meet a very small
> percentage of likely use cases.
> 
> From a web browser vendor perspective, this is going to become fairly
> complex quickly and will likely deter all but the most advanced users
> attempting to manage preferences at this level of granularity.  Those
> very same users are probably savvy enough to simply reset or block 3rd
> party cookies already -- AND/OR -- go into "Privacy Mode" in their
> browser -- AND/OR -- leverage 3rd party tools that already solve much
> (all?) that is attempting to be solved here.
> 
> From a publisher perspective, attempting to support a static list of known
> 3rd parties is going to be significantly difficult to impossible.  And
> the rate of change will require continuous repermissioning of users to
> gain a "user granted exception".  I understand there are a very small
> sub-set of publishers that could find value in the origin/origin
> approach, but appears this weight comes to bear on larger publishers to
> some degree -- all depending on how the UA UI is built (which as we've
> already discussed is going to be fairly complex).
> 
> - Shane
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 20:26:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC