On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Justin Dolske <dol...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 5/16/14, 6:38 AM, Curtis Koenig wrote: >> >> Would this be disabled in Private Browsing? If not that might be >> perceived as negating one of the reasons users have for using that >> particular feature. > > Private Browsing mode is about not storing _local_ data from your > activities. It is explicitly not an "anti tracking" mode because that's > extremely difficult-to-impossible to do robustly just on the client, and > would be a misleading claim and/or result in a browser most people would > think is broken. E.G. as already noted in this thread, sites can already do > this without <a ping>.
I don't agree with this. If it was just about not storing _local_ data then we wouldn't create a separate (throw-away) cookie jar for private-browsing windows. We would just avoid writing new cookie data while in private browsing. But I believe that that would be a pretty crappy private browsing feature which I don't think anyone here would argue for. Private browsing is mainly about giving you a new, throw-away, identity. The throw-away part is why we don't allow storing data. The reason we have a separate cookie jar is in order to implement the "new" part. However I agree that keeping <a ping> enabled in private browsing doesn't affect your ability to have that new, throw-away, identity. However we do implement some additional features in private browsing mode. For example we disable link coloring. I'm not sure what the exact goal of that is. I always guessed that it is to enable you to be extra private about your identity while in private browsing. So that might provide an argument for disabling <a ping> in private browsing. / Jonas _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
