- From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:55:30 -0000
- To: "'Matthias Schunter \(Intel Corporation\)'" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "'Shane Wiley'" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Shane, As I understand the use-case, getting consent for multi first-parties can be handled by the existing API. Script in the top-level domain just calls the API with the additional parties in arrayOfDomainStrings. I thought the problem with multi first-parties was the DNT:1 case, and (otherwise) third-party servers wanted to claim first party status and so respond with Tk: 1. This is different from the situation where you want to simultaneously register tracking consent to other (actual) first-parties, each perhaps with their own retinue of third-parties, which hits the same-origin restriction. Or have I not understood your use-case? Can you give an example? Mike -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] Sent: 18 March 2013 15:37 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 18:56:00 UTC