Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] First-Party Sets (#342)

> how would an org register these? Is there a scope for a standarised approach to registration / vetting / approval process? 

The explainer currently only speaks to the technical aspect of the proposal; but yes, we are absolutely interested in working with the ecosystem on a standardized approach to the policy enforcement. 

FYI: Chrome is currently running an Origin Trial and has a temporary informal process [described here](https://www.chromium.org/updates/first-party-sets) (note: the experiment does not have any privacy implications at this point, because SameParty cookies don't bypass the "Block third-party cookies" user control at this point). 

> Secondly, we discussed permissions promopts - would allowing camera acess for one site in a first party set (like instagram) then allow it for other sites in the set (such as whatsapp)?

No, we are not proposing to change the scope for permissions. The current scope for FPS is only to be treated as a privacy boundary where browsers impose cross-site tracking limitations (such as third-party cookie blocking).


-- 
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/342#issuecomment-801240344