On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: > Because I thought we said earlier (in DC) that we expected browsers would only show exception UI in response to a user gesture. > > I don't recall agreement on this point. It's in nobody's interest for users to get harangued about exceptions. But there may be better ways to prevent that. > Otherwise, you end up with popups on every page > > There are some market checks against this outcome. Publishers, for example, may tell ad companies to knock it off. > (which apparently some people think is an OK outcome) I haven't heard anyone express that view. Though there is a most entertaining satire of that (straw man?) position at http://www.cookiedemosite.eu/. > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org (mailto:rigo@w3.org)> wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 June 2012 15:50:23 Ian Fette wrote: > > > You say "you can trigger an exception" but that's a HECK of a lot > > > harder for a third party to do. > > > > Ian, > > > > you said, "if I do not respond, I'm not on the hook". > > > > This is something else then saying: "I will never ever accept any > > token from UA string IE". > > > > And to trigger an exception is actually a good test. I still believe > > that we should arrive in the 21th century. That means we have to > > start thinking about what it makes a HECK less hard for a third > > party to trigger an exception. > > > > If this is all about revenue and not about technology and users, you > > could negotiate every cookie directly with the FTC or the > > Commission. > > > > But I hope I can tease you to better technology. So how can we make > > exceptions easier? You say it's hard. Why? Because of the origin > > constraints? > > > > Rigo > > >
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 00:06:23 UTC