W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > February 2004

Re: linked

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:52:16 +0100
To: "'public-p3p-spec'" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040217125216.GA743@accueil.w3.org>

On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 02:05:15PM -0500, Lorrie Cranor wrote:
> 
> What if I reformulated the second bullet of the linked definition as 
> follows... note that
> I used the term "identifiable" here rather than "identified"... I
> think that best reflects what we mean in this case.
> 
> <p>A piece of data X is said to be <i>linked</i> to a cookie Y if at
> least one of the following activities may take place as a result of
> cookie Y being replayed:</p>
> 
> <ul>
> 
> <li>X is retrieved from a database.</li>

One short remark: If you would say retrieved and omit the database,
interpretation will find that X has to be retrieved somewhere, from a
database or some foo semantic web that will be created in five years :)
> 
> <li>Information identifiable with the user -- including but not
> limited to data entered into forms, IP address, clickstream data, and
> client events -- is added to a record in which X is stored.</li>
> 
> </ul>
> 
> <p>
> If either of these activities happen immediately upon cookie replay or
> at some future time (perhaps as a result of retrospective analysis of
> server logs), then the piece of data X is considered linked to cookie Y.
> </p>

This is okay with me.

Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 07:52:21 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:46:30 EST