Re: link shorteners etc.

On 2014-06-26 16:24, David Singer wrote:
> Thank you for the analysis, I agree with your analysis of link
> shorteners.  (And I think the conversation has otherwise got off
> track; we don’t need to debate the precise details of the 1st party
> rules nor why we got to where we are, to resolve link shorteners.)
> Perhaps we can work towards text on link shorteners now?
> “For the avoidance of doubt, link shorteners are not destinations, and
> not destinations that a user intends to visit, and hence are third
> parties as defined in this recommendation.” ?

Do you intend that as a replacement of my earlier proposal or as a 
friendly amendment? Not that I'm overly attached to my proposal, it is 
mostly intended as a logical conclusion of the principles expressed in 
the already existing editor's draft of the 1st party definition.



Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 15:03:51 UTC