- 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