- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:45:06 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
Hi all, ISSUE-113 was closed and continued as ISSUE-130. Both relate to ISSUE-112. After remark from David, I would suggest to create a new issue on wild cards for explicit statements on sub-domains with concrete text as suggestion. The big question is whether we take full regex or some stripped version. Rigo On Sunday 25 November 2012 12:45:09 David Wainberg wrote: > > ISSUE-113: How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)? > > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112 > > > > On these issues IMHO the status is as follows: > > - If a site-wide exception is requested, all subdomains are > > automatically included > > - This issue is only relevant for explicit/explicit lists of > > domains (if the site uses them) > > - An original proposal (from Ian) used cookie-like handling > > - The current approach requires explicit listing of all > > sub-domains - Is this current approach OK or do we need to text > > alternatives? > My understanding of current status is that although some are not > thrilled with the wild-card (cookie-like) approach, there has not > been strong opposition, and that several participants have > expressed a strong need for that approach. Therefore, at this > point we are no longer debating wild-cards vs explicit, and > should be narrowing down to the exact implementation of > wild-cards.
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 19:45:33 UTC