- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:23:21 +0100
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <52CB10B9.1030807@schunter.org>
Hi Team,
as part of removing dependencies in the compliance spec, Roy removed the
"1" and "3" signals.
I would like to make a case for keeping these two signals in a revised form.
SCENARIO TO PREVENT
The reason these signals were included is to detect/prevent the
following scenario:
1. - A party designs an element to be used _only_ within its own
web-site (e.g., the google logo).
2. - The party uses this element for some kind of tracking
3. - Another site (say Matthias's homepage) re-uses the element and,
e.g., claims "not to do tracking"
4. - However, in fact, the other site does tracking (by accidentially
embedding the tracking element)
OLD TEXT
This is the text, I copied from an older version of the DNT spec.
**
3 *Third party*: The designated resource is designed for use within a
third-party context and conforms to the requirements on a third party.
1
*First party*: The designated resource is designed for use within a
first-party context and conforms to the requirements on a first party.
If the designated resource is operated by an outsourced service
provider, the service provider claims that it conforms to the
requirements on a third party acting as a first party.
Roy had to remove the text since it references "requirements on a first
party" (that is undefined in the TPE and will be defined in the
compliance regime)
PROPOSED NEW TEXT
I think that the signaling of "elements for site-internal use" and
"elements re-usable by other sites" remains useful.
**
3 *Third party*: The designated resource is designed for re-use by
other parties.
1
*First party*: The designated resource is designed for use within the
serving party.
In the scenario above, this would work as follows:
1. - A party designs an element to be used _only_ within its own
web-site (e.g., the google logo) ("1")
2. - The party uses this element for some kind of tracking ("T")
3. - Another site (say Matthias's homepage) re-uses the element and,
e.g., claims "not to do tracking" ("N")
4. - However, in fact, the other site does tracking (by accidentially
embedding the tracking element)
The result (detectable by a browser or by the site owner) is that a
"1+T" element from another site would
show up on the page that claims "N". This may indicate a potential problem.
Any opinions/feedback/improvements?
Regards,
matthais
Received on Monday, 6 January 2014 20:23:51 UTC