the iframed sets a Partitioned cookie, the cookie will >>> have a partition key of Site B. Therefore, it won't be accessible in the >>> iframe embedded under

>> first-party workers being available in third-party contexts the same way >> that third-party cookies already can be. In the absence of such a solution, >> we

that the first-party Deprecation Trial (DT for top-level sites) for 3PCD is now available. See below resources for more details: Announcement blog: https://developers.google

surfaces with first-party SameSite=Strict cookies > Ah I see, that makes sense yeah. Thanks for clarifying! > > > Chrome would want to see more developer interest before

Blink ships first either. >>>> >>>> Jeffrey >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 8:52 AM Alex Russell >>>> wrote: >

, the First-Party Sets project was recently renamed > to Related Website Sets; more information on that can be found here > . (We're in the > process of updating relevant

the same First-Party Set, in conformance with the specification, and now we intend to prototype support for user permission prompts and user-agent-specific permission behaviors

third-party cookies. We will send I2Ps for each of these. Mode A: Ad techs can receive control and experiment labels on a portion of traffic and use these to conduct testing and experiments

third-party resources from accessing cookies and >>> other storage for privacy and security reasons. The most popular reason is >>> cross-site tracking prevention

("first-party") cookies on behalf of >>>> embedded sites. Browsers will have discretion to grant or deny access, with >>>> mechanisms like

new tab sets the cookie and closes its tab. The main page then retries its operation, and (problematically) the subframe again reports that its cookie was not set, and the new popup repeats

WICG/first-party-sets Specification TBD. Summary First-Party Sets (FPS) is a web platform mechanism, proposed within the context of browser efforts to phase out support for third

that the party terms are currently not well suited for specification language because of their ambiguity. You're also right that ideally explainers and intent emails should

the feature first party sets flag and followed the When I try launch crome like this: start chrome --use-first-party-set=https://my-test:8443,https://my-other-test:8453 and

third-party contexts) > > Digital Goods API > First-party sets > Idle Detection > Main thread Scheduling APIs: Prioritized scheduler.postTask > > MediaStreamTrack

privacycg/first-party-sets > > https://github.com/cfredric/sameparty > > > Summary > > Introduce a mechanism by which a set of registrable domains (a >

privacycg/first-party-sets >>> >>> https://github.com/cfredric/sameparty >>> >>> Specification >>> >>> None

chrome-first-party-sets}@chromium.org Explainer - Explainer - Specification: will post when ready. - TAG review Summary Introduce a cookie attribute called SameParty, which

> "First-Party Set") can declare themselves to be the same "party" or entity, >> such as web properties owned by the same company, or domains with different

site A sets first party cookie COOKIE_A uses the feed URL >>> https://a.test/media_feed_url/user_id=COOKIE_A. Site B sets first >>> party cookie COOKIE_B

” to first party sets , however, in the current implementation in Chrome, it behaves exactly the same as “Lax” -- other browsers handle the value inconsistently. Usage of the attribute

a third party without a key consistency check, this API could be used as a replacement for third party cookies. One tentative idea that solves both of these issues is to just make key consistency

this the first time you've shared these > metrics, or is it something other browser vendors might already be aware > of? I'm just wondering how much of the problem of lack