Re: Gentle reminder / text inputs to CfO

Hi Folks,


unfortunately, the deadline for fine-tuning proposals has passed.
I took Rob's text proposal from the list that I received before the
deadline (yesterday 9am Germany).

I also included the "close without spec change" proposal from Shane.

I am sorry if I overlooked any other concrete text submission for this
CfO. If this is the case, please point me to the submission mail in the
archives...


Regards,
matthias

PS: We spent 2 months fine-tuning this single field which caused us to
deviate from the time-line. Since the main goal is to get the spec out
for implementors, I believe that publishing a CR in June should be our
top priority. So please pardon my undue haste.

On 01.06.2017 22:34, David Singer wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On May 28, 2017, at 7:58 PM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com
> <mailto:rob@blaeu.com>> wrote:
> 
>> RE: Gentle reminder / text inputs to CfO Dear all,
>>
>> I had input from Mike which we merged with my first text proposal. As
>> a fallback that original text proposal is still valid, but personally
>> I think the following revised text is more futureproof and fit for
>> purpose.
>>
>> REVISED TEXT PROPOSAL
>>
>> [new] 6.5.7 Other-Parties Property (to be added after the existing
>> definition of the “same-party” property)
>>
>>  
>>
>> An origin server may send a property named “otherParties” to
>> distinguish those domains that it claims it may embed but not subject
>> to its own control (i.e. not referenced by the same-party property and
>> do not share the same data controller indicated by the “controller”
>> property).
>>
> 
> 
> This allows the site to embed a completely random list which I cannot
> trust to tell me anything, even by omission. Embedded sites may or may
> not be mentioned here. What is this telling anyone? What constraint is
> the publisher of this field under that a reader can rely on?
>>
>> The “otherParties” property contains either an array of strings
>> representing a list of domain names, or an array of objects each with
>> a string property “domain” whose value represents a particular domain
>> name.
>>
>> An origin server MAY use partial wildcards in domain names, e.g.
>> *.otherparty.com <http://otherparty.com> (which matches any resource
>> on the host or any of its subdomains (and any of its subdomains'
>> subdomains, and so on)). The named component must not represent a
>> top-level domain.
>>
>> When the array of objects form is used an origin server MAY include
>> other properties, e.g. information based on the modalities of the
>> collection, its purpose, and the controller responsible for the domain.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Examples (to go at end of 6.5):
>>
>> {
>>
>> “otherParties”: [
>>
>>                             “www.example.com <http://www.example.com>”,
>>
>>                               “*.analytics.org <http://analytics.org>”,
>>
>>                               “socialwidgit.com <http://socialwidgit.com>”
>>
>>                          ]
>>
>>                }
>>
>>  
>>
>> {
>>
>> “otherParties”: [
>>
>>                            {
>>
>> “domain”:  “www.example.com <http://www.example.com>”,
>>
>> “category”: [“functional”]
>>
>>                                          },
>>
>>                            {
>>
>> “domain”:  “*.analytics.org <http://analytics.org>”,
>>
>> “category”: [“analytics”]
>>
>>                                          },
>>
>>                                           {
>>
>>                                              “domain”: 
>> “socialwidgit.com <http://socialwidgit.com>”,
>>
>> “category”: [ “advertising”, ”analytics”]
>>
>>                                          }
>>
>>                        ]
>>
>>                }
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>     -----Original message-----
>>     *From:* Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
>>     *Sent:* Sunday, May 28 2017, 7:51 pm
>>     *To:* public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>>     (public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
>>     *Subject:* Gentle reminder / text inputs to CfO
>>
>>     Hi Folks,
>>
>>     by Monday 9am Pacific, all text proposals for the call for objections
>>     must have been sent to the mailing list.
>>     I suggest to mark inputs with [CfO-input] to emphasize them.
>>
>>     If I do not receive any text proposals by this deadline, I consider that
>>     we reached a consensus to close this issue without changing the draft.
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     matthias
>>
>>
>>

Received on Friday, 2 June 2017 09:28:16 UTC