- From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:23:50 -0500
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 1/12/12 4:43 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * David Wainberg wrote: >> In either case, we need to define (cross-site) "tracking", right? Let's >> just define the data collection and use we're concerned with, and skip >> defining the parties. As I've argued before, we are doing this >> backwards. We've been trying to back into a definition of tracking by >> defining parties and use exceptions. But if we just define the >> collection and use that constitutes tracking, first the need refinements >> via exceptions, etc. will become quite clear, and second, most >> everything else will fall into place. > The Working Group is expected to produce something that allows people to > say something is contrary to the specifications produced by the group. > Ed Felten's question was whether there is anything that would be contra- > ry to the group's specifications under a party-based definition but not > under a "cross-site" based definition, or vice versa. Ed's question was "Is this "cross-site" discussion a debate about substance, or only about terminology?" Perhaps I could have been more direct, but my answer is that there is a substantive difference, and not one of mere terminology. If it were mere terminology the terms would be interchangeable in the spec, but they are not. The key difference I see largely goes to the complexity of definition and implementation, rather than to the expected end result for users, but to me that's a important difference. A party-based definition will generate unnecessary and avoidable ambiguity and complexity for the companies trying to adhere to the standard.
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 22:36:45 UTC