- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:09:52 -0700
- To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Nicholas Doty wrote: > Hi Roy, > > I've moved ISSUE-5 to the Compliance June product; I believe that existing issue closely tracks the topic of this change. > > I've set up a wiki page for this proposal: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Definition > The wiki page also has the text from the editors' draft, for comparison. > > I'm not sure I caught your explanation during the call today, but one interpretation of this text would also suggest changes to the party, first party and third party definitions to instead use "contexts", and perhaps a re-writing of the first and third-party compliance sections. Is that your intention with this proposal? It can go either way. It is primarily meant as a middle ground between the folks who like the simplicity of first party being defined by ownership, and the other folks who believe conglomerates that happen to own thousands of brands should not be given a free pass to track across sites that don't even share common branding. The definition of first party could be rewritten in terms of the user's current browsing context, thereby fixing several problems with the notion that a user interacts with only one site owner per interaction. [E.g., the existing text about the first party being the domain name of the page is just plain wrong, as the first party in any given set of network interactions often starts with one site (e.g., search) and ends with another site, and each one is considered the first party depending on where you are in the set of network interactions that the UA is processing in order to build the next page.] Or, the definition of context could be more specifically defined (for the sake of this spec) to be the first party, and we could spend more time trying to explain why there are multiple first parties in a network interaction. Or, network interaction could be redefined in some way. Or, if nobody like this notion of context, we can go back to the "across unaffiliated websites" in Shane's proposal, which is an antiquated way to think about the Web and HTTP use, but would at least correspond to the current requirements. Regardless, this wording allows the notion of "what is tracking" to be discussed separately from the scope of what the group wants to allow as a common context. I have removed the implication of common ownership from the scope. If we can't agree on what tracking is, regardless of allowed scope, then there really is no point in continuing further. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 01:10:16 UTC