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

Re: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up

From: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 12:54:02 -0800
To: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCC2D540.1D522%vigoel@adobe.com>
Hi Aleecia,

For issue-97, and I apologize in advance if this is being dealt with
elsewhere, I thought we haven't yet come to consensus on whether a service
provider is a third party, the same party as the first party, or
referenced to as a service provider.

If its not resolved yet and if we take your proposal to adopt 3.5.2 Option
2 in which case a service provider is different than a third party, in
both those examples, I have problems calling the URL shortening services
third parties when they may actually be service providers.  I get the
intent of the author to want to call a URL shortening service a 3rd party
if they have their own use of the data.  But, in these non-normative
examples, it doesn't say that the shortening services have their own use.


On 11/9/12 3:04 PM, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com> wrote:

>Here are places we might have straight-forward decisions. If there are no
>responses within a week (that is, by Friday 16 November,) we will adopt
>the proposals below.
>For issue-97 (Re-direction, shortened URLs, click analytics -- what kind
>of tracking is this?)  with action-196, we have text with no counter
>proposal. Unless someone volunteers to take an action to write opposing
>text, we will close this with the action-196 text.
>	PROPOSED: We adopt the text from action-196,
>For issue-60 (Will a recipient know if it itself is a 1st or 3rd party?)
>we had a meeting of the minds
>but did not close the issue. We have support for 3.5.2 Option 2,
>#def-first-third-parties-opt-2, with one of the authors of 3.5.1 Option
>#def-first-third-parties-opt-2 accepting Option 2. There was no sustained
>objection against Option 2 at that time. Let us find out if there is
>remaining disagreement.
>	PROPOSED: We adopt 3.5.2 Option 2,
>For action-306, we have a proposed definition with accompanying
>non-normative examples
>	PROPOSED: We adopt the text from action-306 to define declared data, to
>be added to the definitions in the Compliance document,
>	PROPOSED: We look for volunteers to take an action to write text
>explaining when and how declared data is relevant (See the note in
>#first-party-data) to address issue-64
>	Aleecia
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 20:54:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:13 UTC