Re: Status of non-normative text sections

> On Jan 12, 2015, at 15:28 , Nick Doty <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Explaining party distinction: 
> The October 2012 draft includes text explaining why party is relevant for a particular interaction, because it can change. I believe we’ve generally improved that text subsequently, as we now always refer to first- and third-party as related to a given user action (and have defined terminology on user action) rather than any implicit connotation about the status of an organization. I don’t believe we need separate non-normative text to explain that motivation in the actual text of the recommendation.
> 

This may be opening a can of worms, but…I am not sure I understand the need for a party distinction, given our current definition of ‘tracking’.  When I proposed ‘tunnel vision’ it was partly to remove dependency on something that cannot be easily determined (which is the web site the user ‘intended’ to interact with?), and since then we have, I think agreed that ‘no cross-site tracking’ and tunnel vision are the same.

So, maybe this is a disruptive question, but…do we need the party distinction?

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 17:26:12 UTC