w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire [Call for Objections] Re-direction and shortened URLs
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2014-08-01 to 2014-08-15.
2 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
1. Objections to Option A: No Change/Silence
Option A: No Change/Silence
No change to existing editors' draft text of the First Party section.
If you have an objection to this option, please describe your objection, with clear and specific reasoning.
Details
| Responder | Objections to Option A: No Change/Silence |
|---|---|
| Walter van Holst | This would result in sufficient ambiguity to enable link shorteners to claim first party status. In a Compliance Specification that exempts first parties, this would create a loophole. Even though the URL usually is visible to users, their interactions with the link shortener service is so cursory and transient that they cannot be considered as content providers visited for their own sake. |
| Rob van Eijk | No change/silence creates ambiguity on the status of a provider of URL shorteners. Therefore additional clarifying text is needed, such as the text offered under OPTION B. A provider of URL shorteners may be a service provider to the first party when it processes the data on behalf of the contractee and the user must be informed about that relationship. However, in absense of such a contractual relationship the party providing URL shorteners does not qualify as being part of the first party realm. The second argument supporting the objection is that in absense of information to the user, we should assume that the user is unaware. The implication of the unawareness is that the given user interaction was not intended by the user. The given user interaction with the shortened URL does not qualify as a 'meaningful interaction'. Therefore, the provider of URL shorteners does not qualify as a first party. |
2. Objections to Option B: redirection or framed content
Option B: redirection or framed content
Add the following text after existing first party definition:
Network interactions and subrequests related to a given user action may not constitute intentional interaction when, for example, the user is unaware or only transiently informed of redirection or framed content.
If you have an objection to this option, please describe your objection, with clear and specific reasoning.
Details
| Responder | Objections to Option B: redirection or framed content |
|---|---|
| Walter van Holst | |
| Rob van Eijk |
More details on responses
- Walter van Holst: last responded on 3, August 2014 at 09:48 (UTC)
- Rob van Eijk: last responded on 15, August 2014 at 12:21 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project