- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 22:25:39 +0200
- To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Shane, I'm surprised to hear that from you because in order to get a web-wide or even a site-wide exception, you need this granularity anyway. I also not that a consent mechanism could not work that way as the object of the consent would be open ended and thus undefined. If you only say * and don't tell what it means, there can't be any consent or agreement. Best, Rigo On Thursday 03 May 2012 10:44:34 Shane Wiley wrote: > I know we're not supposed to add "+1" but I do want to pile on a bit here > to support Kevin and Ian in that I can't see the value in overloading the > standard to add such a high-level of complexity to meet a very small > percentage of likely use cases. > > From a web browser vendor perspective, this is going to become fairly > complex quickly and will likely deter all but the most advanced users > attempting to manage preferences at this level of granularity. Those > very same users are probably savvy enough to simply reset or block 3rd > party cookies already -- AND/OR -- go into "Privacy Mode" in their > browser -- AND/OR -- leverage 3rd party tools that already solve much > (all?) that is attempting to be solved here. > > From a publisher perspective, attempting to support a static list of known > 3rd parties is going to be significantly difficult to impossible. And > the rate of change will require continuous repermissioning of users to > gain a "user granted exception". I understand there are a very small > sub-set of publishers that could find value in the origin/origin > approach, but appears this weight comes to bear on larger publishers to > some degree -- all depending on how the UA UI is built (which as we've > already discussed is going to be fairly complex). > > - Shane
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 20:26:14 UTC