Re: Issue for discussion on Wed - User Agent Compliance

>Currently we have ISSUE-205: user agent compliance requirements on the
>Compliance June product which tracks a couple of change proposals around
>the topic. 
>I'm uncertain at this point whether this is actually a proposal about UA
>compliance (are browsers not supposed to remember or sync a list of open
>tabs?) or a requirement on other software (routers, cloud-based UAs,
>operating systems) that sees or sends along an HTTP request from
>tracking, or just a re-statement that Web sites operated by companies
>that produced the user's web browser are third parties when in a
>third-party context. So it's possible we would need a separate ISSUE, but
>for now we can use 205.

I believe it is both UA's and routers - as both of those entities tend to
have transparency into the URL string and other information.

I'm not trying to get at a browser's internal operations (e.g., syncing
open tabs, remembering previously visited sites). However, I am trying to
get at a browser vendor using the URL string for reasons other than the
browser's internal operations.

Would we be able to come up with a representative list of internal
operations and then say that anything outside that list may only be done
with consent? Is that a viable approach?



Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 13:04:33 UTC