Re: [w3ctag/spec-reviews] Browser Fingerprinting Document (#38)

Edits made this month attempt to address the naming issue (w3c/fingerprinting-guidance#5) and add several examples, which I noted during our February call might address concerns or at least elucidate where we disagree. @slightlyoff, you might look at those now and see if that helps, or at least, I'm at the point where I'll need more info from you to understand your concerns. (The minutes from the February call might also explain my position and what I don't understand.)

On the challenge of explaining how specifications should handle the trade-off, would it help to combine Best Practices 1 and 2 and note that, when trying to balance functionality with additional fingerprinting surface, a key consideration is especially to avoid increases in the passive surface? 

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/38#issuecomment-235788255