Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Early design review for the Topics API (Issue #726)

Hi Martin: I think we're largely in agreement here.  The W3C clearly has _not_ come to anything like agreement regarding the kind of trade-offs made in the Topics design.  And indeed Privacy Sandbox includes an entirely separate proposal, FLEDGE, which makes a different set of design decisions here, for just that reason.

As I said [above](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726#issuecomment-1424728951), "we hope the testing feedback we hear and the implementer experience we gain will be valuable contributions in future work" — and that work absolutely includes the sorts of principles discussions you're asking for.

If the TAG wants to pause this review until they / the PATCG / etc. come to some consensus on a higher-level position that would inform it, that's entirely reasonable.  I feel like I already made a similar offer, and @torgo indicated a preference to keep the review going.

As @jkarlin's response indicates, we think the [Jan 12 "initial view"](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726#issuecomment-1379908459) reflects a variety of misunderstandings on specific implementation choices, and we strongly disagree with the conclusion that it "appears to maintain the status quo".  That seems like worthwhile clarification, irrespective of what overarching principles we all agree to use to measure these sorts of proposals in the future.


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726#issuecomment-1503614473
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726/1503614473@github.com>