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

UA: Jeremy's comments on high-level questions

From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:50:37 -0400
To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Message-Id: <2348CF12-87B6-11D7-93B7-000393DC889A@research.att.com>


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Jeremy Epling" <jepling@windows.microsoft.com>
> Date: Fri May 16, 2003  3:41:46  AM America/New_York
> To: "Lorrie Cranor" <lorrie@research.att.com>
> Subject: RE: participation in p3p 1.1 wg
>
> Inline comments to an old mail of yours. Tell me if you wanted comments
> on another mail.
>
>
> Some 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?
>
> [Jeremy] I want to emphasize that I think these are guidelines and not
> mandates for user agents. With that in mind I see no reason why we
> should not try to converge on a single set of "friendly text strings". 
> I
> don't think we need to add stylistic elements into the guideline, such
> as the click through approach that NS has taken. I feel that content is
> what is most important and that style of display is an important market
> differentiator that should not be brought into the guidelines.
>
> - Should we recommend that P3P user agents be capable of displaying
>    complete translations (all elements, including all human-readable
>    elements)? If not, is there a minimum set of elements they should
>    display? Or perhaps some guidelines on completeness that will
>    prevent misleading users?
>
> [Jeremy] I think we should recommend the display of all elements except
> for the data nodes. I think they are too granular and that the
> categories amply provide enough information to the user for them to 
> make
> their choice on whether on not to share their data.
>
> - Should we make any recommendations about displaying human-readable
>    fields?
>
> [Jeremy] the obvious problem with these fields is localization. If I am
> using a French browser I do not want to see French "friendly text
> strings" and then a consequence in English.
>
> - Should we make any recommendations about displaying data elements
>    and categories?
>
> [Jeremy] I feel that data categories are important information on which
> the user basis their decision on whether or not to transmit their data.
> Therefore, there should be recommendations about how they are 
> displayed.
>
>
> - What other types of guidelines should we consider?
>    - recommendation that UAs have ability to save policies
>    - recommendation that UAs have ability to print policies (if run on
>      devices connected to printers)
> 	[jepling] This is important and simple functionality that needs
> to be recommended.
>    - recommendation that UAs refuse to process CPs for sites not
>      "properly" P3P-enabled
>    - recommendation for checking cookie policies (strengthen 2.3.2.7
>      requirements)
>
> Jeremy Epling
Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 11:49:17 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:46:24 EST