- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:10:02 +0000
- To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "Mike O'Neill" <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Matthias, I disagree and believe we can cover the multi-1st party (co-controller) use case with very little modification. As this is critical to many of the larger companies within the working group, I would recommend we keep this on the table for discussion. - Shane -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:37 AM To: Shane Wiley; Mike O'Neill Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) Subject: Approach to ISSUE-167: Multiple site exception ISSUE-167: Multiple site exceptions http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/167 Hi Team (and in particular Shane and Mike), I have re-read the minutes and it seems to be that the right approach forward to ISSUE-167 (albeit not perfect) is to leave the API as it is for final call and then understand the implementation experiences. We can then design a backward compatible way to add MultiSiteExceptions later. One challenge to overcome is that we need to ensure that the envisioned method is secure, i.e., that one can only ask for exceptions for sites that one owns/controls. Formally, I suggest to document this and mark ISSUE-167 as POSTPONED. Are you OK with this way forward? Regards, matthias
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 16:20:51 UTC