- From: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 00:45:52 +0200
- To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- CC: ifette@google.com, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F9F1620.40208@schunter.org>
Hi Jonathan, I agree that the complexity seems manageable. As a group, I believe that it is nevertheless important to understand 'why do we need this feature' and then 'What is the best (=minimum complexity / least cost / most usable / ...) way to achieve this goal. I believe that we need to revisit the first question 'why is the feature needed' and what use cases cannot be implemented without it (e.g., by after-the-request logging): I currently do not see a strong push from web-sites to request such exceptions. Since this feature is designed to be used by web-sites, this should tempt us to drop it unless it provides clear benefits to other stakeholders even if only used by few sites. Are there other requirements/use cases that I've overlooked or am I mistaken in another way? Feedback is welcome! Matthias On 30/04/2012 23:59, Jonathan Mayer wrote: > The complexity seems quite marginal to me. Here's what an analytics > service that prefers explicit-explicit exceptions might do with a > boolean flag approach. (A + denotes an additional required line.) > >> var trackingExceptionHandler = function(status) { >> // Handle acceptance and rejection gracefully… >> } >> >> +if(navigator.supportsExplicitExceptions) >> +navigator.requestSiteSpecificTrackingException(["exampleanalytics.com"], >> trackingExceptionHandler); >> >> +else if (navigator.supportsWebWideExceptions) >> navigator.requestWebWideTrackingException(["exampleanalytics.com"], >> trackingExceptionHandler); >> >> else { >> // Use super-sweet out-of-band exception mechanism >> } > > Pretty painless. > > On Monday, April 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: > >> As a website operator, your proposal adds even more complexity to the >> mix. This is not a good idea. >> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu >> <mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>> wrote: >>> As best I can tell, here's the current state of the debate: Some >>> working group participants believe there are important use cases for >>> explicit-explicit exceptions, others do not. Some browser vendors >>> are willing to implement support for explicit-explicit exception >>> pairs, at least one is not. >>> >>> Given that background, how's this as a compromise: We make support >>> for the various exception types optional for browsers, and we >>> include some ability for a website to learn which exception types >>> are supported by a browser. A website isn't left guessing how a >>> browser will interpret its exception requests, and a browser vendor >>> is free to pass on the exception types that it doesn't believe it >>> can provide a good user interface for. >>> >>> One approach would be to include simple flags that indicate >>> support (e.g. booleans like navigator.supportsWebWideExceptions). >>> Another approach would be to modify the TrackingResponseCallback to >>> handle a not-supported state. If a website learns the browser >>> doesn't support its preferred exception type, it can fall back to a >>> different exception type or an out-of-band exception. >>> >>> On Monday, April 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) >>> wrote: >>>> I'm a bit perplexed as to the fact that you think a UI such as the >>>> one you describe would actually be compliant. I thought the whole >>>> point of this exercise was to allow the user to express a >>>> preference and translate that as directly as possible to something >>>> that can be passed on to websites they visit. >>>> >>>> If you start picking and choosing from the API as if it were a >>>> buffet, where does that leave you? You seem to imply it's fine for >>>> a UA to ignore the explicit nature of a "first/third" exception and >>>> turn it into a "first/*". Would it be equally fine then to just >>>> ignore the distinction between "first/*" and "*/third" and just >>>> offer "site" exception regardless of first/third issues? Or just to >>>> ignore exceptions all together and say "Eeh, it's a UI issue, if >>>> the site grants an exception to anything we'll just turn off DNT >>>> globally." >>>> >>>> I think what is being proposed is unworkable and people are trying >>>> to use the notion that it's "just a UI issue" to keep it in the >>>> spec. This is not a good idea. >>>> >>>> As for the new corner cases, I think many of us are expecting that >>>> there will be new regulatory considerations (either under existing >>>> or future regulatory regimes) that will involve DNT. Whenever there >>>> are new considerations, there are new corner cases. For instance, >>>> cookie blocking doesn't actually send any explicit signal to the >>>> server, nor does the server have any clue as to what the heck is >>>> actually going on. Now we're giving servers a clue, hence there's >>>> much more complex considerations. >>>> >>>> -Ian >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org >>>> <mailto:npdoty@w3.org>> wrote: >>>>> On Apr 25, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Also, I don't think we should just punt something by saying "It's >>>>> a UI issue." The spec has implications on UI that should not be >>>>> ignored. explicit/explicit means we have to come up with UI to >>>>> support this, where so far we have failed, it means sites now have >>>>> to worry about corner cases they didn't before, etc. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Rigo that this is a UI issue in the sense that user >>>>> agent developers are completely free to decide whether or not to >>>>> create what kind of UI they want. (We were able to discuss this >>>>> confusion in DC, but only briefly, so I'll try to recap.) If >>>>> Google Chrome decides that its users never want or need to see a >>>>> list of domains, even when a site requests exceptions for a >>>>> specific list, Chrome need not present any such UI; the browser >>>>> can just display whatever UI the Chrome team creates for a >>>>> site-wide exception and the team doesn't have to come up with any >>>>> other UI. The browser also may choose not to store the list >>>>> version of the permissions but just store a site-wide permission, >>>>> or not to store the permission at all, the spec explicitly leaves >>>>> all of these choices up to the user agent implementation. (Section >>>>> 6.5 lists several other UI decisions that are also completely up >>>>> to the user agent developer.) I expect user agent UIs to vary -- >>>>> some browsers will use a simple built-in UI to avoid burdening >>>>> their users; a developer of plugins for particularly >>>>> privacy-conscious users might build a more complex configuration >>>>> panel. Vive la différence. >>>>> >>>>> What are the corner cases that sites have to worry about that they >>>>> didn't before? In the current self-regulatory opt-out cookie >>>>> system the publishing site never gets an indication of whether one >>>>> of its advertisers received an opt-out signal (unless it >>>>> communicates on the server side) and the site may have a mix of >>>>> advertisers that received opt-out cookies or not. Sites that only >>>>> wish to ask for site-wide exceptions can always call >>>>> requestSiteSpecificTrackingException with the "*" parameter; that >>>>> some unrelated sites specify a list of origins in the parameter >>>>> need not affect them. Of course, even sites that always use "*" >>>>> may still receive visitors where some of their parties receive >>>>> DNT:0 and others receive DNT:1, but that situation will exist >>>>> whether the JavaScript API takes a list parameter or not. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps, >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 22:46:24 UTC