- 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>
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