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

RE: "that party" (was CVS WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts)

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:07:40 -0000
To: "'Nick Doty'" <npdoty@w3.org>
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <017101d01c3c$caee1340$60ca39c0$@baycloud.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yes Nick, “that first-party” would make it clear.

Thanks

Mike

From: Nick Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org]
Sent: 19 December 2014 21:22
To: Mike O'Neill
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: "that party" (was CVS WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts)

gpg4o
 Unknown Signature from 40203EE90BBAB306 1 10 01 1419024137 9
 
 Hi Mike,

On a recent call, you had expressed some concern about one of my edits. In particular, I believe it was this one, about using “that party” instead of “the first party” in this sentence on compliance as a first party to a given user action.

[In the diff format below, the paragraph with the “-“ in front of it is removed, with a “+” added.]
On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:41 PM, CVS User npdoty <cvsmail@w3.org> wrote:

<p>
- -      A first party to a given user action MUST NOT share data about those network interactions with third parties to that action who are prohibited from collecting data from those network interactions under this recommendation. Data about the interaction MAY be shared with service providers acting on behalf of the first party.
+      A first party to a given user action MUST NOT share data about those network interactions with third parties to that action who are prohibited from collecting data from those network interactions under this recommendation. Data about the interaction MAY be shared with service providers acting on behalf of that party.
</p>

My thinking was that this didn’t change the meaning of the sentence, but just used the more comfortable demonstrative adjective. Does using “that party” imply that data may be shared with a different set of parties?

Would “that first party” address your concern?

Thanks,
Nick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.3.26.5094 - http://www.gpg4o.com/
Charset: utf-8

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUlUpqAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JwBgIAOfNalXnbkp6Yfbq++dEv5f7
D1iqD8ZqUN0AHk1g9ph++7J55ZP9U5Q3o/nhm2apFmS1NsA3Q3vfDbkg1ajfX0WC
ndVCrjSrizSxMpOt68xhbyUUNVxH4fsVBeRNZIXwiZbArdsGMvAmF9HsHu1Ym3/g
sdd1UGANqPWD0VQ8tKh9u/aU3fzdeJ5ei3+rmZha+5UBVr1R1h8eGrqiUSC0ObaC
S0ys0gJB9mLgmE4VrXzthdks+i3D1IK87E+Qqn6rM4YD3jK0KxCyVavVVL6Xfhp1
vvZmo/Y0eXcBo+V8hHtt/Dd49MVFRefnJRF9Iaw4O5rKy6LVL04jLNm/IkNBmm8=
=4HTr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Saturday, 20 December 2014 10:08:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:15 UTC