- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:22:03 -0800
- To: Tracking Protection Working Group <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Cc: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
By the way, I note that we expect to define first and third party when we resolve Issue-10: > Definitions for party, first party, and third party are awaiting WG decision following call for objections. and there are 10 occurrences of “first party” and 19 of “third party” in the document. On those grounds alone, it seems that the first/third distinction is used in, and expected to be defined in, the TPE, without even considering any external document, and so a header signal that says “I was written expecting to be accessed as a first|third party” is something that can rest entirely within the TPE, and needs no discussion of what compliance is being claimed. Now, indeed, this throws into question how independent of compliance the TPE can be. As Nick and Roy have eloquently pointed out, it’s hard correctly to define a protocol which clearly asks for and says something, when the something itself is capable of varied and external definition. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 23:22:33 UTC