Re: ISSUE-164 (requirements on same-party attribute): Call for text alternatives (possibly until Wednesday September 26)

Are these proposals mutually exclusive, or might it be possible (say) to
adopt C along with either A or B?

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>wrote:

> Hi Team,
>
> triggered by last weeks call, I created ISSUE-146 that allows us to
> discuss to what extent the "same-party" attribute should be optional.
>
> During the call, we discussed three options so far:
>
> (A) Current draft: Resource is optional
>
> (B) Alternative proposal 1: If multiple domains on a page belong to the
> same party, then this fact SHOULD be declared using the same-party
> attribute
>
> (C) Alternative proposal 2: State that user agents MAY assume that
> additional elements that are hosted under a different URL and occur on a
> page and declare "intended for 1st party use" are malicious unless this
> URL is listed in the "same-party"  attribute
>
> In order to now start our decision procedure, I need proposed text
> changes (as specific as possible) for proposed alternatives to the
> current text (text proposals may follow our discussions along the lines
> of (B) or (C) or propose further alternatives).
>
> I would like to obtain input by Wednesday (if possible) to then start
> the call for objections ASAP.
>
> Regards,
> matthias
>
>
>
>