[Responder] Roy Fielding
I support this definition. The reason context is not defined as part of this definition is because the scope of what a user considers to be same-context is an orthogonal question. Hence, it can be debated and decided separately, or perhaps not even defined at all (left to the user to define according to what is evident from a site's user experience). The entire point of using context in this definition of tracking is to abstract away from what has clearly been a contentious issue. Objecting to this definition because you don't like the explanatory notes is ludicrous -- they exist for the sole purpose of explaining what I was thinking when writing down the definition, so that the chairs would have a better idea of what might be considered "new information" if we later change those assumptions. They are not part of the definition itself. Objecting to this definition because you don't like relying on undefined terms is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent further work on the standard. Every word in the specification is dependent on the specification's scope, and that scope is "Do Not Track". I don't think we need to define the first two words, but we do need to define the third. For two years now, the same people have been complaining about working on a definition of collection because they did not have an agreed upon definition of tracking. We have to start somewhere. If new information is discovered later, the W3C process allows this decision to be reconsidered by the group.