5 ms·

What a weird piece of writing. Is this like just chicken scratch? Or is this seriously some kind of part of the W3C working process? Section 2: Third party coo

What a weird piece of writing. Is this like just chicken scratch? Or is this seriously some kind of part of the W3C working process? Section 2: Third party cookies have gotten bad. Ok. Section 3: There are legitimate use cases that third party cookies currently cover. Also ok. Then they throw in, "Be aware that a set of new technologies which carry minimal risk individually, could be used in combination for tracking or profiling of web users." Yes? Huge scope increase in the document though and all of a sudden we're now talking about tons of tracking technologies in aggregate? The authors move on without further comment. Section 4: I think the first half is essentially saying that new technology coming online in the web platform will make the third party cookie problem worse, so we should fix it soon. OK, I'm with back with you. Then the document suddenly pivots to proposing general standards for web privacy again, saying that the burden of proof is on the people originating the proposal to, before concluding by saying (apparently without irony?) that justifying the removal of third-party cookies' impact on business is outside of the scope of the document. I'm missing a ton of cultural context here about how W3C works, so I'm guessing this probably amounts to rough notes that somebody intends to clean up later that I'm being overly critical of, and they didn't expect it to get any traction on hacker news.

bilekas 1y ago
It's W3c... They've never been the most coherent with standards ironically.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
motorest 1y ago
...or it's a design by committee thing, and some people in the room are doing their best to preserve current and future tracking technology.
- bilekas 1y ago
  It's exactly this, there is a group who come together and never agree on rules, but when they do, they never enforce them. It's I believe the definition of a paper tiger, sadly. A great idea executed horribly.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > A great idea executed horribly. No. It's sabotage.
    - milesrout 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - consp 1y ago
        Design by committee is more likely malice than accident or stupidity. Some factors work towards goals which are good for them but malice for the majority.
  - __alexs 1y ago
    Standards bodies rarely enforce rules themselves.
  - squigz 1y ago
    Is it really on the W3C to enforce standards? How would that even work?
    - lukan 1y ago
      By shipping their own reference browser ..
      - squigz 1y ago
        In what way would that enforce standards?
IshKebab 1y ago
Isn't W3C fairly irrelevant these days?
- hackrmn 1y ago
  They're very far from irrelevant, depends on what kind of Web development you do, I would say -- I have been writing WebAssembly by hand (I mean, a lot can be said about that but it's a thing) and the spec. is authored by W3C. There's plenty of other things they author, like, you know, either one of the many _CSS_-related specifications. It's just that with the modern Web 7.0 (or whatever version we're on now), it's WHATWG that's most prominent since there's that one spec that defines 90% of what happens on the Web, it's called "The HTML standard" or some such. Then you have Google de-facto authoring specs., which may or may not find their way back into the HTML document, but even if they don't, they do make you feel like W3C is left behind.
- FinnKuhn 1y ago
  The EU uses the WCAG 2.0 to define web accessibility in multiple acts and directives, some of which were passed pretty recently.[1] [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/european-union/ https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/european-union/

bilekas 1y ago

It's W3c... They've never been the most coherent with standards ironically.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

motorest 1y ago

...or it's a design by committee thing, and some people in the room are doing their best to preserve current and future tracking technology.

bilekas 1y ago
It's exactly this, there is a group who come together and never agree on rules, but when they do, they never enforce them. It's I believe the definition of a paper tiger, sadly. A great idea executed horribly.
- motorest 1y ago
  > A great idea executed horribly. No. It's sabotage.
  - milesrout 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - consp 1y ago
      Design by committee is more likely malice than accident or stupidity. Some factors work towards goals which are good for them but malice for the majority.
- __alexs 1y ago
  Standards bodies rarely enforce rules themselves.
- squigz 1y ago
  Is it really on the W3C to enforce standards? How would that even work?
  - lukan 1y ago
    By shipping their own reference browser ..
    - squigz 1y ago
      In what way would that enforce standards?

IshKebab 1y ago

Isn't W3C fairly irrelevant these days?

hackrmn 1y ago
They're very far from irrelevant, depends on what kind of Web development you do, I would say -- I have been writing WebAssembly by hand (I mean, a lot can be said about that but it's a thing) and the spec. is authored by W3C. There's plenty of other things they author, like, you know, either one of the many _CSS_-related specifications. It's just that with the modern Web 7.0 (or whatever version we're on now), it's WHATWG that's most prominent since there's that one spec that defines 90% of what happens on the Web, it's called "The HTML standard" or some such. Then you have Google de-facto authoring specs., which may or may not find their way back into the HTML document, but even if they don't, they do make you feel like W3C is left behind.
FinnKuhn 1y ago
The EU uses the WCAG 2.0 to define web accessibility in multiple acts and directives, some of which were passed pretty recently.[1] [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/european-union/ https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/european-union/