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

Re: [BH] The most generic binding

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:01:08 +0200
Message-ID: <05a901c34bdd$6178fb00$df13fea9@srx41p>
To: "Joseph Reagle" <reagle@w3.org>, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>, "public-p3p-spec" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>

I think the confusion is that the wrong mail has been quoted. My mail
suggesting binding a P3P Policy to an arbitrary element is at

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2002AprJun/0247.html

The mail quoted originally is not from me.

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph Reagle" <reagle@w3.org>
To: "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>; "public-p3p-spec" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
Cc: "Steven Pemberton" <steven@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [BH] The most generic binding


> On Wednesday 16 July 2003 08:12, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> > I owe you this since a long time.
>
> Yes, and now I expect to have little time for this issue.
>
> > Steven Pemberton suggested a very simple binding that would allow to
> > bind a P3P-Policy to arbitrary XML-Elements. He thought it would be a
> > quick and short specification to do as it would define a generic
> > attribute like xml lang=..[1] This could be done in a separate
> > specification, but is also a possible candidate be included in the
> > [beyond HTTP] stuff.
> >
> > So I suggest to specify an XML-attribute that can be generally used to
> > point to a _Policy_ (not PRF). The binding is no issue as the attribute
> > itself defines it's own binding by the element it is sitting on.
>
> I don't completely understand. I note that in the CR [a] they have a
> mechanism for associating an input with a "p3ptype." (I'll also note that
> for historical purposes some privacy advocates *objected* to P3P
> controlling the exchange of information under a policy. For some reason,
> when we made the policy orthogonal to the actual auto-fill or control of
> the exchange, which permits someone to make misrepresentations in the
> policy and then solicit lots of unrelated information in a form, they felt
> *happier*. <shrug/>)
>
> [a] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/slice6.html#model-prop-p3ptype
>
> > In a past email, Steven Pemberton gave an example of how this could look
> > like[2]
>
> You seem to be suggesting that you'd associate an actual policy with an
> element (e.g., p3ppolicy), for example:
> <model>
>  <instance><root><yourname/><homeEmailAddress></root></instance>
>  <bind "creditCardNumber" p3ppolicy="http://example.com/some-policy.xml"/>
> </model>
> but I don't think that's what Steven is discussing in [2]. I *think* they
> are using p3ptype and perhaps asking two questions:
> 1. How/when is the evaluation of a policy governing a form field
> corresponding to a p3ptype affect the auto-filling of the form. I think
> Steven is comfortable with the model there but I can't say I understand
> everything involved there.
> 2. Even if the P3P policy permits its release, should it be released if
the
> form field is not displayed to the user via old CSS mechanisms, or XForms
> switch/case mechanism. I think it would be a good idea for the HTML family
> of specifications to recommend that fields should NOT be auto-filled if
> they are not presented to the user. (Of course, agents will not be able to
> figure this out in all cases as one could use various size,color, CSS
> tricks?)
>
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2003JanMar/0127.html
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 17:01:10 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:46:26 EST