Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Specification review for fenced frames (Issue #838)

> Hi folks -
> 
> We're noting that there have been many spec changes since our last comment but no changes to the explainer. Can you please explain what has changed since our [previous review](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/735) and a short explanation of why you made these changes?
> 
> We appreciate that you updated this thread with links each time you make updates to the spec, however these would also be better as updates to the explainer. It's good for an explainer to be a living document.
> 
> In general, we're concerned about the direction this is headed since our last review. Concepts such as "exfiltration budget" which seem to be at odds with the stated goals of the fenced frames proposal itself?
> 
> We've previously asked for use cases and user needs and we haven't really seen anything back. These should be added to the explainer as well.

Responding to explainer updates below but I had a quick clarification before that, I don't see "exfiltration budget" in any of the updates above, could that comment be referring to another TAG review, perhaps? Similarly for the comment about use cases, the use cases are actually defined in the fenced frames explainer - is that comment for another TAG review too?

Sure, we would be happy to link the explainer updates corresponding to the spec updates linked above. Since most of these updates are in the Protected Audience + Fenced Frames reporting space, most of those explainer updates are in the Protected Audience repo and we can list them here in a follow up comment.



-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/838#issuecomment-1892646374
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/838/1892646374@github.com>