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

Re: explicit-explicit exception pairs

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 09:37:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8dB7-GX34Bf-BM2hxjkMp42-7R4u76XyCZmbr=+0-vX-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:20 AM, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 03 May 2012 13:27:17 Shane Wiley wrote:
> > Disagree on granularity.  If I say "the 3rd parties I work with = '*' "
> > then it is defined and consent has been reached.
> I also forgot to mention that in 5.2.2, a party can declare which other
> domains are "the same party". But at the same time, a party can not declare
> which are the third parties? Isn't this the same granularity? Wouldn't it
> be
> sufficient to count all the parties and declare the same parties and the
> other parties as for 5.2.2 a site would have to distinguish them anyway?
As we discovered on the call last week, I think a lot of us have issue with
the new text introduced into 5.2.2... I don't personally place much stock
in that. Personally, I have no desire to try to list what origins comprise
my first party, it's a potentially unbounded set. (think things like
username.googleuserdata.com, or the complexity that arises each time I add
a new TLD, e.g. google.search)


> Rigo
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 16:37:57 UTC

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