ACTION-258: Propose 'should' for same-party and why

Roy Fielding as best explained this issue in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jan/0083.html

 At the end, in possibilities (y) and (z), Roy's email perfectly 
describes the issue and the benefit of having a first origin describing 
other first parties or service providers in the Tracking Status Report 
as "same party". 
 It is therefore suggested to use the following wording: 
 Old wording: 
 An optional member named same-party may be provided with an array value 
containing a list of domain names that the origin server claims are the 
same party, to the extent they are referenced by the designated 
resource, since all data collected via those references share the same 
data controller as the designated resource.

 New wording: 
 An optional member named same-party SHOULD be provided with an array 
value containing a list of domain names that the origin server claims 
are the same party, to the extent they are referenced by the designated 
resource, since all data collected via those references share the same 
data controller as the designated resource.

This allows user agents to check with the original origin, whether they 
know about this claimed service provider relation and whether they 
approve it. This is very nice as it pushes control and responsibility to 
those creating and controlling the page in the first place. 

I think Tom wanted this, so UAs can take a clear benefit here. 
(suggestions recorded to ACTION-258 which is related to ISSUE-164


Rigo

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 20:32:56 UTC