W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > April 2003

UA: notes from April 21 task force teleconference

From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 14:20:46 -0400
To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Message-Id: <F8DC9550-7425-11D7-994A-000393DC889A@research.att.com>

As previously announced [1] we had our UA TF call this afternoon. 
Brooks and I were the only ones on the call despite several others 
telling me they would be there.

We focussed our discussion on the document I sent out with observations 
on the the three translations [2]. Brooks and I were mostly in 
agreement on the high level observations. We didn't go over the 
detailed observations. It would be useful for everyone in this TF to 
send in their own observations and raise any points of disagreement 
with my observations.

We discussed the list of questions I posed for the TF to consider (at 
the end of [2]). To this list Brooks suggested we also consider 
guidelines about the display of policy summaries for the site vs. its 
cookies, as well as guidelines for displaying information about cookies 
on a basis other than URL (for example, if a site has multiple cookies 
associated with a given URI that have different policies associated 
with them -- currently IE6 does not provide a way to distinguish these 
policies).

We spent some time discussing the first question on my list. Both of us 
would prefer to converge on a single set of translations, but we're not 
sure whether this will be possible.

I would like to get people focussed on this TF ASAP so we can try to 
move forward, so let me assign some action items to all UA TF members. 
Please try to complete these items and send email to the  mailing list 
by the end of this week.

ACTION ITEM 1: Please review the translation documents and my 
observations about them [2]. Please send to the mailing list any 
disagreements you have with my observations and any additional 
observations you have that I didn't cover.

ACTION ITEM 2: Please begin discussing the first question in my list of 
questions for the TF to consider:

    Should we try to converge on a single set of translations? Should
    we come up with a long and short translation for each element,
    perhaps using the click through approach like NS uses? Should our
    guidelines list all acceptable translations they people submit
    rather than trying to converge or one or two?



[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2003Apr/0020.html
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2003Apr/0018.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/P3P/1.1/documents.html#ua
Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 14:19:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:46:23 EST