W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Batch closing of issues (ISSUE-144, ISSUE-187) [pls Respond by Mar 22]

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:30:31 +0100
Message-ID: <51484C57.80407@schunter.org>
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Jonathan,


I believe that we reached agreement during our last F2F (naturally, only 
among the people in the room).

As far as I recall, Nick was OK with the new approach since he believed 
that it now (after his revisions) provides sufficient protection  
against such a race to the bottom.
The argument that he used was that the browsers are still free to 
validate exceptions with the users before storing them.
If we assume that browsers will do what is best for their users, they 
will start implementing additional safeguards in case sites start
storing exceptions without sufficient user interaction. This may mean 
that a browser can display baloons when an exception is stored or may 
also just
mean that they implement a confirmation UI envisioned in the alternative 
approach.

Nick has clarified these possibilities and seems to be OK (in the "can 
live with" sense) with the new approach towards exceptions.


Regards,
  matthias


On 19/03/2013 06:16, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> On ISSUE-187, have we reached agreement on a consent standard for 
> exceptions under the new model?  If not, I don't believe we've 
> resolved the concerns about a race to the bottom that Nick, I, and 
> others have raised.
>
> On Monday, March 18, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel 
> Corporation) wrote:
>
>> Hi Team,
>>
>> based on our discussion at the Cambridge F2F and exchanges by email, I
>> suggest to close the following issues.
>>
>> Please respond if you disagree with closing one of those issues while
>> substantiating your concerns.
>>
>> Regards,
>> matthias
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> ISSUE-144: User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior
>> while granting and for future requests?
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144
>>
>> The new approach to exceptions has removed those requirements on the
>> user agent. As a consequence, I believe we can close this issue.
>>
>> Note: The related question whether a user agent MUST/SHOULD/MAY
>> implement the exception API is still under discussion as ISSUE-151.
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> ISSUE-187: What is the right approach to exception handling?
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/187
>>
>> During the F2F, we reconfirmed that the recent improvements
>> (e.g., proposed by Nick and Jonathan) improved the new exception
>> approach sufficiently such that it seems likely that the whole
>> group can now live with it. I suggest to close ISSUE-187.
>> ----------------------------------
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 11:30:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:07 UTC