Re: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up

On 11/9/12 3:04 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:
> 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,
I posted questions to the thread for 196. If someone were to volunteer 
to write opposing text, what exactly is the issue? (It's not clear in 
the issue tracker.) Is it how the standard applies to link shorteners?
> 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,, with one of the authors of 3.5.1 Option 1, 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,
I'm confused, 3.5.2 and the option related to issue-97/action-196 are 
mutually exclusive, aren't they? Is the suggestion to pull the link 
shorterner stuff out of 3.5.1 and add it to 3.5.2?

Confusion aside, I'd propose some edits for concision and clarity to 3.5.2:

/First Party is the party that owns or has control over the resource 
with which the user interacts, which might include a website a user 
visits, an embedded widget, a search box, or similar.//
//NOTE: Not all interaction is sufficient to make a party a First Party, 
for example, if a user merely mouses over, closes, or mutes third-party 
content, that is not sufficient interaction to constitute a First Party 
widget interaction.//
//A Third Party is any party other than a First Party, Service Provider, 
or the user. It is possible to have multiple first parties on a single 
page but each party must provide clear branding and access to their 
respective privacy disclosures (co-branded experience)./
> 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,
This is only a proposal to add the definition, right? There was 
considerable disagreement over ISSUE-54 -- whether 1st parties can use 
declared data in a 3rd party context. The definition is only relevant to 
the spec if it's used at some point, but I have no problem with the 
definition itself, or with adding it for now.

Received on Saturday, 10 November 2012 00:50:18 UTC