- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:46:01 -0800
- To: Jonathan Robert Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-id: <4B2CC5D8-D8B5-4A2E-81C7-0B7A19E8C4D2@apple.com>
To be clear, I only provide the edits I personally suggested; I think all of us were asked to be precise about what we were suggesting, and I didn't do anyone else's suggestions. On Jan 4, 2012, at 15:42 , Jonathan Robert Mayer wrote: > Thanks for taking notes. Tom and I will revise the text to incorporate what we heard on today's call. Much of the focus was on the edge cases of mashups and inadvertantly embedded content - which strongly suggests to me that we're very close to consensus. > > The two outstanding high-level concerns that I recall are: > > 1) Are the standards we provide workable in practice? I believe close calls will be very rare, and only companies gaming the margin would have to consider surveying users. Heather was less sure. Heather, could you suggest a few common use cases that lead to a difficult analysis under the draft's standards? > > 2) Shane suggested (and a few supported) moving to a user-is-able-to-discover-information standard for what's a party and what's a first or third party. Shane, could you briefly sketch what this standard might look like and give a few examples where it would work a different result from our user expectations standard? > > Jonathan > > On Jan 4, 2012, at 1:27 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > >> Here are my comments/suggestions, after this morning's call. >> >> 1) section 2.1. Make clear that the user is a party, or specifically say that the definition defines parties that may be 1st or 3rd. >> also raise an issue for a clear definition of what falls into the 2nd party?? (e.g. software or other agents acting on the user's behalf??) >> >> 2) section 2.1. Consider adding the condition that two separate legal entities cannot be considered a single party (in our context). >> >> 3) section 2.1. Add an issue that we may want to strengthen the definition to the point where it is testable. >> >> 4) section 4.1. Make the definitions of what is a 1st party a list of conditions, all of which apply. >> >> 5) section 4.1. Add to the list of conditions: >> a) the user must be directly aware of the existence and identity of a separate entity, prior to their interaction. >> b) the user's makes an independent choice to communicate/interact with the entity. >> >> Counter-examples to (a) are a weather or other widget with no obvious branding or other evidence to show it came from another organization or entity; the user is not aware of a separate identity behind it. >> Counter-examples to (b) are where sites are mash-ups of unpredictable sources; the user, by visiting the mash-up, chose only the mashing site as the first party; until the user interacts further, the mashed sites are third parties (and rule (a) applies as well - the user must be aware that they are mashed in, and not sourced by the mashing site). >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 22, 2011, at 15:25 , Jonathan Mayer wrote: >> >>> Tom and I have worked for several weeks on a comprehensive draft of the sections delineating first parties and third parties. We attempted to reflect the approaching-consensus discussion at Santa Clara and on the email list. Our draft includes both operative standards language and non-normative explanation and examples. The text is formatted with the W3C template to better resemble how it would appear in the final document; please note that this is not an Editor's Draft (as the template might suggest). >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> <parties-draft-jm-tl.html> >>> >> >> David Singer >> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. >> > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:46:30 UTC