- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:32:26 -0500
- 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 implementation. >> 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? Matthias > > >
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 11:56:29 UTC