- From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:08:15 -0500
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
An example of unnecessary ambiguity and complexity? I think it's obvious. I assume two things. First, that the determination of covered data usage and collection will be necessary with or without the party-based approach. Second, that the determination of covered usage and collection is alone sufficient. Therefore the party-based definition adds unnecessary and avoidable complexity. The ambiguity comes from the difficulty in making those party-based determinations. Our conversations on this point to date demonstrate this difficulty. On 1/12/12 6:49 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * David Wainberg wrote: >> 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. > Could you walk us through an example scenario?
Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 20:21:23 UTC