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

issue-60 (first and third party) -- Re: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:54:36 +0100
Cc: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D3C1F339-7170-4A3E-8F49-FC2C002FBAB9@w3.org>
To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
On 2012-11-10, at 01:49 +0100, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org> wrote:
>> 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-2 accepting Option 2. There was no sustained objection against Option 2 at that time. Let us fi
>> nd 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
> I'm confused, 3.5.2 and the option related to issue-97/action-196 are mutually exclusive, aren't they? Is the suggestion to pull the link shorterner stuff out of 3.5.1 and add it to 3.5.2?

Let's bite off one piece at a time.

It sounds to me like, for the narrow definitional text, we have agreement on using the text from 3.5.2 (modulo editorial changes) instead of the text in 3.5.1.1, the "definitions" subsection.  Subsequent parts of section 3.5.1 include options for a number of other issues that seem to be orthogonal to issue-60.

Can we agree on using the definition from 3.5.2 as a replacement for 3.5.1.1, and then go on to review the remaining text that's currently in 3.5.1?

> Confusion aside, I'd propose some edits for concision and clarity to 3.5.2:

You make it sound like these changes are purely editorial (and I would agree with that assessment).  If that's indeed the case, though, can you (for now) live with the existing text in 3.5.2, for the sake of reducing the number of balls we have in the air?

> First Party is the party that owns or has control over the resource with which the user interacts, which might include a website a user visits, an embedded widget, a search box, or similar.
> 
> NOTE: Not all interaction is sufficient to make a party a First Party, for example, if a user merely mouses over, closes, or mutes third-party content, that is not sufficient interaction to constitute a First Party widget interaction.
> 
> A Third Party is any party other than a First Party, Service Provider, or the user. It is possible to have multiple first parties on a single page but each party must provide clear branding and access to their respective privacy disclosures (co-branded experience).
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 11:54:43 UTC

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