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

Hi Roy,


thanks for the feedback!

During our call, we discussed that the sites may disadvantage themselves 
if multiple elements on a page are served from different domains and 
declared for "1st party use" while the corresponding same-party 
attribute does not state that this is OK: The reason is that this 
scenario poses a privacy risk (elements with undue tracking on a page).

I am looking for text says so. Proposals that improve on my suggestion 
are welcome. If nobody proposes text, then this option is likely to 
disappear (same with the option (B) where I would like to see a text 
proposal or explicit endorsement of this text).

matthias





On 23/09/2012 20:31, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I only recall discussing (A) and (B). (C) is not a valid statement 
> because it has nothing to do with interoperability -- user agents are 
> free to assume anything they want based on the input they get, 
> including equally bogus assumptions like the moon is made of cheese. 
> It certainly doesn't deserve mentioning in a spec. ....Roy 

Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 17:11:21 UTC