W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Using "tracking" in compliance document (ISSUE-203)

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 10:55:32 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F28AF7BE-164C-4090-B3B1-69C1320E0C3B@gbiv.com>
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
On Aug 6, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> On 08/02/2014 12:10 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> As mentioned on the last teleconference, I have been working on a draft
>> proposal to address tracking-ISSUE-203 by rewriting TCS based on the
>> WG decisions made for the TPE last call working draft.  I have finished
>> a complete draft and uploaded it to
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance-i203.html
>> Please note that this is just a draft proposal.  I used the ED format in
>> order to make it easier to read and much easier for the TCS editors to
>> copy and paste whatever is acceptable to the group.
> Thanks for the draft, Roy.
> An editorial recommendation: s/contractee/principal/ in the discussion
> of Service Provider would make it clearer reading.

Hi Wendy,

That's part of the SP definition which was just accepted by the group,
not specific to the issue-203 proposal.  In any case, I don't understand why
it would make the definition of SP better.  Privacy research uses the term
principal for the site owner, IIRC, so I wouldn't want to mix the two.
Contractee in this case could be a site owner, third party, or the user
(e.g., split browsers ought to be an SP relationship between the user
and the proxy owner if there is to be any privacy for that user).


Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 17:55:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:12 UTC