- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 04:24:51 +0000
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org Working Group" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:33 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > Roy Fielding as best explained this issue in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jan/0083.html > > At the end, in possibilities (y) and (z), Roy's email perfectly > describes the issue and the benefit of having a first origin describing > other first parties or service providers in the Tracking Status Report > as "same party". > It is therefore suggested to use the following wording: > Old wording: > An optional member named same-party may be provided with an array value > containing a list of domain names that the origin server claims are the > same party, to the extent they are referenced by the designated > resource, since all data collected via those references share the same > data controller as the designated resource. > > New wording: > An optional member named same-party SHOULD be provided with an array > value containing a list of domain names that the origin server claims > are the same party, to the extent they are referenced by the designated > resource, since all data collected via those references share the same > data controller as the designated resource. Something cannot be both optional and required to "SHOULD", which as we've discussed many times before means "MUST unless you have a very good reason". Being expensive isn't usually a good reason. The compliance spec already provides a definition that allows people to determine same party status. http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-party If sites want to voluntarily also provide concrete information in the TSR then they are welcome to but they should not be required to do this. This may be complex and costly for parties that have a large number of domains but which otherwise easily meet the same party definition (commonly owned, easy discoverability, etc.) As I've said before, I think the old text is better. Cheers, Adrian.
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 04:26:06 UTC