Hi Nick,

My mistake – I thought I was looking at the working draft. That wording is much better.

Thanks

Mike

From: Nick Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org]
Sent: 22 March 2015 23:24
To: Mike O'Neill
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: issue-219 and editors/working draft (was Re: [TCS] comments on 17 Feb 2015 editors draft)

gpg4o

Unknown Signature from 40203EE90BBAB306 1 10 01 1427066663 9

Hi Mike,

I think the confusion is that you're looking at the last snapshot Working Draft (from November); the changes for issue-219 and other edits have been made to the Editor's Draft, here:

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#third-party-compliance

This is also a reminder for me that our schedule requires that we publish another Working Draft (as we're past our three months), either of Compliance or TPE.

Nick

On Mar 21, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote:

Hi Nick,

I just noticed that in the TCS Working Draft,  3.3 Third Party Compliance, item 2 says:

2.that party MUST NOT use data about previous network interactions in which it was a third party to the user action.

Surely that text does not correspond to the chairs’ decision on issue-219 i.e. Option B (or 2), where the text is:

the third party MUST NOT use data collected in another context about the user, including when that party was a first party.

To correspond with the decision the current TCS text should be changed to:

2. that party MUST NOT use data about previous network interactions in which it was a party to the user action.

Mike