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

Re: New Change Proposal: New text for Definition of Collect (Issue-16)

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:48:21 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>, Rob Sherman <robsherman@fb.com>
Message-ID: <2160948.USJ66DG38e@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Vinay, 

your initial email wanted to get rid of transient collection and focus 
on network interaction. With Rob's amendment, we have transient 
collection back and network interaction additionally in the mix. And 
Rob's addition eliminates third party compliance all together for short 
term collections as those interactions are not defined as "collection" 
anymore. No collection, no issue. 

A permitted use has a prerequisite that collection happened. If per 
definition no collection happened, there is no need for a permitted use 
anymore for short term collection. The short term collection exception 
is still controversial, so your suggestion should be added to ISSUE-134 
and not only to ISSUE-16

Personally, I think the initial solution with a good collection 
definition and a permitted use for short term collections is a nicer 
design, notwithstanding the controversy..

 --Rigo

On Friday 27 September 2013 09:22:59 Vinay Goel wrote:
> Like the other email, thanks for the thoughtful explanation and
> edits.  I'll accept your suggested changes as edits to my proposed
> text, though I do suggest we provide some guidelines for what
> 'short-term, transient' means within Section 5.  I know many
> participants can't support specific time constraints, but I think we
> should think of high-level guidance on what 'short-term, transient'
> means.  I'll see what I can come up with.
Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 20:48:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:18 UTC