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

ISSUE-112 - was Agenda

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:45:06 +0100
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
Message-ID: <2951109.cz9zJFmyH5@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Hi all, 

ISSUE-113 was closed and continued as ISSUE-130. Both relate to 
ISSUE-112. After remark from David, I would suggest to create a new 
issue on wild cards for explicit statements on sub-domains with 
concrete text as suggestion. 

The big question is whether we take full regex or some stripped 
version. 

Rigo

On Sunday 25 November 2012 12:45:09 David Wainberg wrote:
> > ISSUE-113: How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)?
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
> > 
> > On these issues IMHO the status is as follows:
> > - If a site-wide exception is requested, all subdomains are 
> > automatically included
> > - This issue is only relevant for explicit/explicit lists of
> > domains  (if the site uses them)
> > - An original proposal (from Ian) used cookie-like handling
> > - The current approach requires explicit listing of all
> > sub-domains - Is this current approach OK or do we need to text
> > alternatives?
> My understanding of current status is that although some are not 
> thrilled with the wild-card (cookie-like) approach, there has not
> been  strong opposition, and that several participants have
> expressed a strong need for that approach. Therefore, at this
> point we are no longer debating wild-cards vs explicit, and
> should be narrowing down to the exact implementation of
> wild-cards.
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 19:45:33 UTC

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