“Google was only member to vote no, while 24 others approved.” Not understating this: where data/privacy policy intersects with competition policy may be the most consequential work of our digital future. It’s where Google holds its power and is failing the public good.https://twitter.com/MattRogerson/status/1177174759597105152 …
-
-
If privacy matters, grounded analysis matters. Without it, things that seem harmless could be devastating (and vise versa). Without a model, there's precious little way to help feature developers improve at scale.
@w3ctag asked PING for this *repeatedly* in the years I served. -
Which brings us the "formal objection" mechanism. In the W3C process, FO's serve many purposes, but are often a way to request changes to a proposed charter when a member thinks change is essential for the success of a group. Here, we (Google) requested a model be in in scope.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.