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

Rigo,

Not behind the scenes, but transparently for all to see - as visible as the
DNT header.

I think nothing reasonable should be out-of-scope if it can help get us to
consensus. 

BTW, on the subject of behind the scenes -  when, and by whom, was it
decided to abandon global considerations?

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: 29 July 2013 08:28
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Mike O'Neill; 'Chris Mejia'; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: 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 09:10:59 UTC