W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Transitive third party exceptions

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 09:18:04 -0700
To: ifette@google.com
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <70367BAA04074596A9CAD5B4523ECAA2@gmail.com>
If we were to support transitivity—an issue that's still in the air—why make it mandatory?  Why not make it optional?


On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:

> This is meant to satisfy ACTION-194 and is a proposal for transitive third party exceptions. I'm not sure if it's necessary if we restrict things to "first-party/*" but if you want to list out "first-party/third-party" explicit/explicit exceptions, I believe it would be necessary for things like advertising networks to function.
> "If a third party has been granted an exception on a page, then any resources fetched by that third party, including items such as images included by that third party, content dynamically fetched by that third party, or another third party that is redirected to (such as via an HTTP 302 status code) are considered to be covered by that exception. This applies transitively, meaning that if in a given context "Site A" is a third party and has an exception, if it redirects to "Site B" then "Site B" is covered by that exception, as would "Site C" if "Site B" either included content from or redirected to "Site C".  
> -Ian  
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 18:09:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:42 UTC