2026-07-14 [09:47:04.0023] Hi all, I'm co-chair of the Private Advertising Technology Working Group. We have a spec that we'd like the group's expertise and review on. I've opened an issue in what is hopefully the right space. Please let me know if I need to file it anywhere else or if there's any more information needed - https://github.com/tc39/agendas/issues/2126 [10:01:59.0326] AramZS: I'm not sure what TC39 reviewing this is supposed to look at? [10:03:18.0926] Yes, it would be helpful to know what you are looking for specifically from TC39 folks. [10:05:37.0956] you may be looking for W3C TAG review: https://tag.w3.org/ [10:05:48.0029] I don't think TC39 would have any feedback for something like this [10:29:07.0874] agreed. although my personal feedback is, i'm not interested in anything that makes it easier or cheaper for advertisers to show me ads [10:29:24.0896] that sounds like the opposite of what would be good for web users [11:15:42.0583] I think the hope is any feedback on internals or APIs and how the function within the larger ecosystem TC39 works on. The W3C review checklist suggests that for proposals that introduce new JS APIs we work with TC39. So any feedback is appreciated and also if there's no interest, we'd miss having your voice in the process, but I know we all have limited time [11:17:18.0557] Our position stems from the idea that this is a behavior that is already happening, we want to make it so that behavior goes away from invasive surveillance approaches and toward privacy safe tools with clear flows and user capability to opt out. One of the editors has a good interview on the topic here - https://monopoly-report.com/p/the-w3c-attribution-api [11:18:57.0326] Why I'm involved is: It's better for users to give them better privacy, better control and better transparency into a thing that is already happening to them while securing methods that keep the web open and give publishers options other than closing down paywalls and blocking users from accessing well-reported information (my bias on the table - I work for a journalism outlet). [11:21:57.0515] This is my first direct involvement over here at TC39 so I'm here on the suggestion of the more experienced haha. Please let me know if it would be helpful to add more details somewhere. I can point to specific areas of the spec if that would help. [11:27:46.0196] Given that no part of the proposal impacts language level APIs, syntax, or (from what I can see) global scope, I don't believe there's really anything here for the committee to take a position on. This sits at a higher level (web apis, and specifically browsers). [11:31:37.0094] We can and IMO should have opinions about API design on the web [11:31:58.0031] more people with API design sense reviewing e.g. WebCrypto could have saved a lot of developers a lot of headaches [11:33:52.0075] I agree it would probably be reasonable for the committee to eventually publish a technical report on general guidance around higher level apis, but it's not likely worth our time reviewing individual specs. [11:34:41.0899] probably not worth time in plenary or from the committee as a whole but individual delegates can comment [11:34:58.0569] (as long as they don't purport to speak for the committee as a whole) [11:35:07.0436] generally, I expect we'd be more interested where a proposal potentially impacts ECMAScript itself or introduces a broadly reusable programming abstraction or general API (e.g. web crypto). what they have is very domain specific. so I don’t see a particular TC39 review item here, unless there is a specific ECMAScript interaction they'd like us to consider [11:36:39.0461] that said I agree there's not much within our remit in this proposal; it's just a couple of APIs that are doing normal WebIDL things [11:36:57.0985] and as alluded to, it's also worth pointing out to `AramZS` that there is no "TC39 review" per se. what is happening is a request for TC39 participants (delegates, invited experts, contributors) to review and provide feedback -- there is no committee-level review process for external specs [11:37:42.0331] my feedback is that the API design, in terms of the basic shape without considering any domain-specific things, looks fine; I have no commentary on anything beyond that [11:38:32.0754] only thing you might want to consider is whether `measureConversion()` might want to be async, but I think it is probably fast enough for it to be blocking [11:39:19.0681] or, wait, it actually is async; I just misread [11:39:23.0657] bleh, I hate reading webidl [11:39:29.0234] I also want to be super clear on this: thank you for bringing it to our attention. it is far better to get things on our radar than not, even if the thing is not necessarily of interest to much of the committee. (not making that judgement here; merely raising the point) [11:39:31.0669] so yeah no feedback [11:41:42.0716] have you already liaised with the W3C web app sec WG ? [11:42:34.0298] Yup. We have them on the checklist and have already requested a review. [11:42:46.0579] Interesting, ok, that was not clear to me. But if you feel there's not a strong case for more formal feedback I'd appreciate it if it was noted on the issue and closed if that is possible. If you want to raise it to membership during a meeting, I'd welcome individual feedback too via the GitHub issues. There is Big Interest in making sure every possible T is crossed so getting a formal closure of the issue would be useful. [11:43:05.0462] Glad to collaborate! [11:44:21.0239] how/when? I haven't seen anything [11:45:05.0038] https://github.com/w3c/attribution/issues/425 / https://github.com/w3c/security-request/issues/137 [11:47:20.0270] a repo I did not know existed. I have no idea how stuff there filters into the WG but I will find out [11:51:52.0802] Yeah, we got a prebuilt checklist of how to submit stuff to different groups. It also suggested outreach to this group via "If you are developing javascript APIs you may also want to ask public-script-coord@w3.org, a technical discussion list shared by W3C and ECMA's TC 39" which is suggesting a mailing list that doesn't seem to work. If that's not the right way to do outreach I'd be glad to let W3C folks know a different preferred method. [11:52:36.0675] well, it's more that there is no mechanism for formal feedback, which is different from groups like the w3c TAG. so it is not really possible to get official TC39 feedback from the committee as a whole. I think it's good to leave the issue open for now, and we can communicate at plenary next week that you are looking for feedback and direct folks to the appropriate issue. again, ultimately you are receiving feedback from members of the committee, rather than the committee itself, and that distinction is very important. apologies for being repetitive πŸ™‚ this is sort of also why our FAQ is riddled with disclaimers πŸ˜… [11:53:27.0587] That works great! I'm very pro feedback from individual members, let's leave it open if it will continue to be useful!