Re: ISSUE-151 Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

Shane, Mike, 

when we discussed this topic on Washington, I somewhat remember that we 
said that the communication between first and third parties behind the 
scene would be out of scope as there is already lots going on. If 
tracking means they know it is the same device, we perhaps have to 
create a token so that a standard situation of non-conforming signals 
can be communicated. We need more ideas. Perhaps Roy has some idea. 

 --Rigo

On Sunday 28 July 2013 22:44:47 Shane Wiley wrote:
> No easy way for 1st parties to easily communicate with 3rd parties as
> many ads today are still served in iFrames and load in parallel with
> the main 1st party page.  So that option is off the table as it would
> require serializing page loads which would significantly impact user
> experience in a negative manner.
> 
> - Shane
> 
> From: Mike O'Neill [mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 3:26 PM
> To: Shane Wiley; 'Rigo Wenning'; 'Chris Mejia'
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ISSUE-151 Re: Change proposal: new general principle for
> permitted uses
> 
> Shane,
> 
> Also if first-party script reads a null from the window.doNotTrack
> property but the server is seeing a DNT header it could also signal
> its third-parties. If the third-parties did this on their own (which
> would be possible in this case) they would need an extra turnround to
> detect it (using a horrible XHR or something). My method uses an
> immediately detectable cookie. Again it might not be there on the
> first transaction but after that it would be.

Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 07:28:48 UTC