- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 17:09:36 +0200
- To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Cc: ifette@google.com, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
On Monday 30 April 2012 13:55:44 Jonathan Mayer wrote: > 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. This mainly says: You can either agree on */* or try some out-of-band- undefined-legalese-click-wrap. I don't like the latter as it reads like an affidavit of (technical) means to me. IMHO this is harmful to the consent mechanism, especially as we don't know what * is. Would you write a blank check like this? (and yes, provider P can have subprovider S who can have subprovider X, but site A still knows it uses provider P and declare it and being responsible for using P) This is about forcing bundles or not forcing bundles. I can understand that (and why) some people are not really happy with unbundling and raisin picking. But we risk to not align well with the data self-determination paradigm if the bundle is too obviously tied to a certain goal. In this case, there is a general take-it or leave-it. This fits some preferences well but not others. How can we accommodate both? I said by allowing granularity and accumulation of the variety into a bundle, but that the bundle isn't created at Specification-writing time, but at site-definition time. Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 15:10:03 UTC