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

Re: AGENDA: 21 July P3P spec call

From: by way of Rigo Wenning <serge@guanotronic.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:38:59 +0200
To: "'public-p3p-spec'" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200407211039.00237.serge@guanotronic.com>
After looking through Giles' proposal, it seems that this boils down to
one main problem: the new schema format conveys more information than
the previous one.   Using XSD allows us to do a number of important
things such as assigning elements to data types, ensuring that an
element's value falls within a prescribed range, as well as stating how
many times an element may be used.  The old format essentially
enumerates the data types and states the categories to which they

Creating a tool to migrate from the old to new format involves making
assumptions about how to fill in this missing information (obviously
going the other way isn't an issue, since information simply gets
discarded).  So it would seem that creating a tool would be possible,
it's just a matter of agreeing on some conventions.  Of course I could
be totally wrong, and welcome any input anyone might have.



On Jul 19, 2004, at 3:03 PM, Lorrie Cranor wrote:
> The next P3P specification group conference call will be on
> Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 11 am - 12 pm US Eastern. Dial-in
> information is available at
> http://www.w3.org/P3P/Group/Specification/1.1/meetings.html
> 1. XML schema stuff
> We're still looking for feedback from implementers. Serge will be
> sending
> more info on the possibility of a translation tool shortly.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2004Jun/0017.html
> 2. Rechartering timeline - the charter for this working group
> expired. Rigo is drafting a new charter
> http://www.w3.org/P3P/Group/Specification/040719-charter.html [member
> only]. The main difference from our old charter is the timeline. We
> expect to be ready for last call in August and then for Candidate
> Recommendation by November (maybe earlier?). We can't exit CR until
> we have met exit criteria (which means we need implementations). What
> is a realistic schedule for getting P3P 1.1 implementations out that
> we can use to meet our exit criteria?
> 3. Exit criteria. We need to have a set of criteria for when we will
> know that P3P 1.1 has been sufficiently tested and implemented to
> become a Proposed Recommendations. I have cut and paste the P3P1.0
> exit criteria (from http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-P3P-20001215/) to
> the end of this message. We have plenty of time to work out the
> details, but I would like to start the discussion about what our exit
> criteria are going to look like. Typically, W3C specs have two
> implementations of all features as part of their exit criteria. We
> also have the option of designating certain features as "at risk" and
> removing them if they are not implemented by the deadline we specify.
> For all the gory details of the W3C process for getting in and out of
> candidate recommendation, see
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#cfi
> 4. Schedule next call (August 11?)
> ---
> P3P 1.0 Exit Criteria
> The Candidate Recommendation review period ends once the milestones
> below are achieved. Input from implementors will be accepted at least
> through 15 March 2001.
>  The milestones are:
> 	1.  	 at least one P3P user agent implementation integrated into an
> HTTP user agent  capable of fetching HTML files that includes all of
> the functionality required  and recommended by this specification
> 	2.  	 a second P3P user agent implementation of each specified
> function (these  functions may be demonstrated across several partial
> P3P implementations  or they may be demonstrated in a second full P3P
> implementation)
> 	3.  	 at least one special-purpose tool for generating P3P policies
> and policy  reference files
> 	4.  	 at least one tool for converting full P3P policies to compact
> policies
> 	5.  	 at least 10 P3P-enabled production web sites
> 	6.  	 at least one web site that illustrates each of the example
> scenarios in  Section 2.5 of the P3P1.0 specification  as well as at
> least one web site that uses mini-policies (these may be either
> production web sites or demonstration sites)
>  Furthermore during the Candidate Recommendation review period, the
> Working Group will:
> 	1.  	 Prepare a W3C Note describing RDF data models representing P3P
> policies and  policy reference files.
> 	2.  	 Submit an Internet Draft to the IETF describing the P3P header
> and request  that an RFC be issued documenting this header.
> 	3.  	 Prepare a set of test policies and policy reference files that
> user agent  implementers can use to demonstrate that their
> implementations behave correctly.  This should include examples of
> policies that contain syntax errors.
> 	4.  	 Specify the appropriate behavior for user agents upon
> encountering  a  policy with invalid syntax.
>  The working group also encourages implementors to explore the
> possibility of implementations in web proxies and mobile devices, as
> well as implementations that can import user preferences using the
> [APPEL]  language.
>  Please send review comments to www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org
> (publicly archived).
>  Should this specification prove very difficult or impossible to
> implement, the Working Group will return the document to Working
> Draft status and make necessary changes. Otherwise, the Working Group
> anticipates asking the W3C Director to advance this document to
> Proposed Recommendation.

Serge Egelman

"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible." --Frank

Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 04:39:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:19 UTC