W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Agenda for 28 November 2012 call - V01

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:32:26 -0500
Message-ID: <511C68DA.9080403@schunter.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi David,

inline some responses.

On 25/11/2012 12:45, David Wainberg wrote:
>> ISSUE-113: How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)?
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
> 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.

We currently allow both: Explicit lists and wild cards. For the 
wild-cards we now agreed to use cookie matching rules to simplify 

>> ISSUE-138: Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI
>> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138
>>     Review non-normative text by Nick and agree that it is OK to put 
>> into the spec.
> Note that I don't fully understand the aim of this text. I may or may 
> not agree with it -- I need further explanation -- so if it's to go in 
> the spec, it'll need revision. If it turns out I'm ok with the 
> substance, I'll be happy to work with Nick to revise.

The question was: How can you trigger the exception API if you only have 
a tracking pixel.  The only technical answer we have is "you cannot" 
since informing consent on a pixel is hard. The consequence is that you 
need to work with your first party (or someone else who has real-estate) 
to trigger an exception that includes your pixel.

Does this clarify?

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 11:56:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:22 UTC