W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Signals for internal / external usage of site elements (the signals formerly called "1" and "3")

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 21:47:48 +0100
Message-ID: <52CDB974.40604@schunter.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi!

I created ISSUE-241 to container this discussion whether we retain the 1 
and 3 signals in some form:
  https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/241

Regards,
matthias


Am 08.01.2014 10:50, schrieb Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation):
> Hi Walter,
>
> fyi: The compliance regime can define "qualifiers". I.e., the 
> alternative would be to define "1" and "3" qualifiers in compliance 
> (while omitting this in the TPE).  This means that 1 and 3 would have 
> a meaning/semantics that is defined in compliance and specific to this 
> compliance regime.
>
> By defining 1 and 3 in TPE, these concepts would be defined once for 
> all potential compliance regimes. This makes sense if it is likely 
> that many compliance regimes need this distinction in the way we 
> define it. If the idea of elements "not to be re-used by other sites" 
> is specific to our compliance regime, we should rather define it there.
>
> Regards,
> matthias
>
>
> Am 08.01.2014 10:39, schrieb Roy T. Fielding:
>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Walter van Holst wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-01-08 09:14, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hence, I don't think the merits of a tracking status value for 1/3
>>>> come anywhere near to justifying its cost, both in terms of getting
>>>> consensus on TPE and in getting implementations of the protocol in
>>>> practice.  If there is ever a need for that information as a means of
>>>> explaining compliance, then it can be included in a qualifier along
>>>> with all of the other explanations of compliance.
>>> Your arguments are quite convincing. The question that remains is if 
>>> (and how) we would allow for future expressions of a tracking status 
>>> according to whatever party definition from the applicable 
>>> compliance spec.
>>>
>>> Do we include an optional signal here that is to be defined by the 
>>> compliance spec? Or do we allow for such an optional signal to be 
>>> defined by the compliance spec(s)?
>> The latter is how the current editors' draft defines qualifiers.
>>
>>> Neither option is very attractive, I must admit.
>> Fortunately, I don't think it impacts the goal of TPE.  The DNT signal
>> is still being sent to those resources, and the user still expects that
>> their activity within other contexts won't be retained (even by 
>> accident).
>> A legitimate compliance regime can be expected to address such mistakes
>> with appropriate requirements.
>>
>> ....Roy
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 20:48:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:21 UTC