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

Re: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:07:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8d0F=0U34pCk1xPRgw9VhU2AGnmZdYp0cX9mjc8ECe4Yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Aleecia, there was proposed text as an alternative to ISSUE-97/ACTION/196.
See my work on ACTION-303 and proposals on that thread.
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/303

In particular, I am not satisfied with redirects being treated as third
parties and would object to that concept.

-Ian

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>wrote:

> Here are places we might have straight-forward decisions. If there are no
> responses within a week (that is, by Friday 16 November,) we will adopt the
> proposals below.
>
>
> For issue-97 (Re-direction, shortened URLs, click analytics -- what kind
> of tracking is this?)  with action-196, we have text with no counter
> proposal. Unless someone volunteers to take an action to write opposing
> text, we will close this with the action-196 text.
>         PROPOSED: We adopt the text from action-196,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0106.html
>
> For issue-60 (Will a recipient know if it itself is a 1st or 3rd party?)
> we had a meeting of the minds (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Apr/0129.html)
> but did not close the issue. We have support for 3.5.2 Option 2,
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-first-third-parties-opt-2,
> with one of the authors of 3.5.1 Option 1,
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-first-third-parties-opt-2accepting Option 2. There was no sustained objection against Option 2 at
> that time. Let us find out if there is remaining disagreement.
>         PROPOSED: We adopt 3.5.2 Option 2,
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-first-third-parties-opt-2
>
> For action-306, we have a proposed definition with accompanying
> non-normative examples
>         PROPOSED: We adopt the text from action-306 to define declared
> data, to be added to the definitions in the Compliance document,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0296.html
>         PROPOSED: We look for volunteers to take an action to write text
> explaining when and how declared data is relevant (See the note in 6.1.2.3,
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#first-party-data)
> to address issue-64
>
>         Aleecia
>
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 21:07:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC