- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:15:03 +0200
- To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- CC: public-tracking@w3.org, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Hi Mike, thanks for your feedback! I have two questions: - Could you live with the proposed text if we decided not to change it? - If not, are there specific (hopefully small) text changes that we could make to allow you to live with this proposal? Personal remark: While I agree with your points, it is important to note that we aim for a text that is "good enough" and does not need to be perfect. I.e., an outcome that introduces tracking in a understandable way while covering 80% of what we mean would IMHO be good enough even if there are some corner cases that are not captured 100% accurately. Regards, matthias On 09/10/2013 22:11, Mike O'Neill wrote: > I agree with David Singer that this is unclear. It seems to say retention of > identifiers is OK within one domain origin but that would allow them by > third-party frames and via redirection via other origin hosts. I know we > don't mean that it could be read that way. To make it clear we would then > have to further qualify the definition, maybe later when it is used for > instance in the third-party compliance section. We would have to say data > cannot be retained if referer(sic) headers, URL query parameters, > postMessage events and whatever communicate cross-domain data i.e. that the > identifier is somehow "attributable" to another domain/service. > > We could make this clear in the definition by adding some non-normative text > like: > > Non-normative. > It follows from this that data such as unique identifiers cannot be retained > by a third-party if they can be associated with another host domain or > service. > > Anyway, in my opinion the cross-domain qualification is already adequately > made elsewhere and putting it here just complicates things, so we should > remove "across multiple parties' domains or services and" or use Option 3 > or 4. > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] > Sent: 09 October 2013 18:36 > To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) > Subject: ISSUE-5: Consensus definition of "tracking" for the intro? > > Hi Team, > > during our call, it seemed that the group was converging on a consensus for > this definition of tracking (option 5 by Roy): > > Tracking is the collection of data across multiple parties' > domains or services and retention of that data in a > form that remains attributable to a specific user, user agent, or > device. > > It is our "old" definition - corrected for grammar. > > Questions: > (a) Are there further required improvements that we need to introduce? > (b) Are there participants that cannot live with this style/type of > definition (assuming we can provide the required final fine-tuning)? > > Regards, > matthias > >
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 19:20:49 UTC