Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] `sec-metadata` (#280)

Hi,

First of all, I like the whole idea of Sec-Metadata (is this the final name finally?). Solves problems, while also offering new ways to make exciting security and privacy measurements (passively, possibly actively, never mind for that until I write a grant proposal for that).

I vehemently favor the legible version. I do not believe there is any particular bloat involved (also, as @mikewest and @mnot appear to say, compression, being the standard now, make it a no-case). 

Please do not write any binary-encoding tables of the kind above. Makes eyes hurt, also, among the others thinking of the poor developers, security engineers and pentesters, I do not think there is a valid case for not having legibility. In other words, do not make it an IAB-style* consent framework 

In other words, I'd say all is fine and on place. There is also no question from my personal perspective, that Sec-Metadata is a good thing, and its value is tangible to multiple stakeholders.



_[*] what do you consent to here? 00000100 11100001 00000101 00010000 00001100 10001110
00010000 01010001 00000000 11001000 00000001 11000000
00000100 00110001 00001101 00000000 10001110 00000000
00000100 00000000 00011101 10111100 00000000 01000000
00000001 00100000 00011000_


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/280#issuecomment-439700743