Paul ShryockJul 25, 2024

It's official! This W3C TAG Finding says:

> "Third-party (AKA cross-site) cookies are harmful to the web, and must be removed from the web platform."

https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/web-without-3p-cookies/

https://w3c.social/@tag/112843057382425739

#privacy

Third Party Cookies Must Be Removed

Third-party (AKA cross-site) cookies are harmful to the web, and must be removed from the web platform. This finding explains why they must be removed, and examines the challenges in removing them. We highlight some use cases that depend on third-party cookies and offer some examples of designed-for-purpose technologies that can replace them. Specification authors are expected to ensure they do not undermine the benefits of removing third-party cookies when proposing new web platform technologies.

Show threadmiunauJul 25, 2024
@paulshryock this is a TAG finding. it's not approved or endorsed by the W3C
Show threadPaul ShryockJul 25, 2024

@miunau I might be misunderstanding where the line is drawn between the two. There's a W3C logo at the top. The Finding says it's a "W3C TAG Finding," and the copyright statement says the W3C has the copyright.

Is TAG a sub-group or an unrelated entity?

I realize this article isn't a specification, but it still seems significant to be an official stance.

Show threadmiunau

@paulshryock W3C has working groups which can have their own drafts, findings, etc. which are explicitly not approved or endorsed by W3C. see https://www.w3.org/standards/types/

it's somewhat significant that it's coming from the TAG but it's three authors posting an opinion basically, not an official W3C stance or standard like your post implies

Types of documents W3C publishes

Understand the differences between the various types of documents published at W3C and what each stage of maturity implies.

W3C
Jul 25, 2024 at 2:26pmWeb
Show threadPaul ShryockJul 25, 2024
@miunau thanks for the info. I've revised my wording for added clarity.
Show threadPaul ShryockJul 25, 2024

@miunau still feels like it's not wrong to say this is a W3C stance, since TAG says they are part of W3C. 🤷‍♂️

Definitely never said it was a standard.

Hopefully my edited original toot is clear enough now to avoid confusion though.