PING - areas where contributions are needed

Colleagues,

The chairs’ informal summary of yesterday’s call will be sent out as usual.

In the meantime, here are some reminders of places where your input would be very helpful.

Please volunteer!

=> Review: Presentation API

Please see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2015JulSep/0137.html


=> Feedback: Secure Contexts - W3C Editor’s Draft [1]

Mike West has revised the draft and is requesting feedback [2].

As a reminder, the specification provides guidelines for user agent implementors and specification authors for implementing features whose properties dictate that they be exposed to the web only within a trustworthy environment.

=> Review: Tracking Compliance and Scope specification [3]

The Tracking Protection Working Group has specifically requested PING review.
The last call comment period ends very soon, on 7 October 2015. This means your feedback should be shared on this list by 2 October.

As a reminder, the specification defines a set of practices for compliance with a user's Do Not Track (DNT) tracking preference to which a server may claim adherence.

The ask: Comments will be most useful in identifying particular problems with the specification that might inhibit adoption, where this specification fails to further goals of user privacy and user control, and whether this specification creates or does not otherwise resolve dependencies with other technical standards, practices, or processes.

=> Contribute: Clear Site Data - W3C Editor’s Draft [4]

This is another Mike West document. 

The document defines an imperative mechanism which allows web developers to instruct a user agent to clear a site’s locally stored data related to a host and its subdomains.

Thank you Simon for taking a look at an earlier version and suggesting that the Privacy Considerations should note that any third-party data set as a result of the visit to the first-party subdomain will not be removed in a Clear-Site-Data event (if this is indeed the case). Are there any other observations or feedback that we should be providing?

=> Contribute: Private browsing mode

This is picking up the earlier thread on private browsing mode and a reminder that there is a discussion going on in the Web Applications Security WG [5], including a mockup idea re automatic private browsing upgrade [6].

Those with an interest in this topic might wish to join the conversation.

There is also currently a TAG working document, but it appears that this has not been updated recently.

Christine and Tara

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/

[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2015JulSep/0133.html

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-tracking-compliance-20150714/

[4] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/clear-site-data/

[5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2015JulSep/0134.html

[6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2015Sep/0016.html

Received on Friday, 18 September 2015 09:51:27 UTC