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

Re: The p3p generic attribute

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:59:47 +0100
To: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@cs.cmu.edu>
Cc: public-p3p-spec <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040304105946.GA969@accueil.w3.org>


the issue is that WSDL is using SOAP and qnames and like in the forms
context, several things can be sent to several URIs and there are
intermediaries. So yes, some things have URIs and some don't. It is a
simple question of granularity and complexity like in XForms. 

If you can match a small chunk (field for XForms, interface for WSDL) to 
a P3P Policy, policy writing gets much easier, matching of functionality
(required/opt in/out) will be easier etc... That's why I'm pushing so
hard on the granularity. It will solve a lot of issues. 

For the data in a chunk of XML that is transferred, this can only 
be solved with a concept like EPAL. (or a major revision of P3P).
Applying policy to data instead of interfaces is the ultimate level of



On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:33:35AM -0500, Lorrie Cranor wrote:
> OK, I like the distinction between interface description and data. I 
> know very little about WSDL and other languages for writing interface 
> descriptions... would an interface description include some reference 
> to a particular entity or URI where the interface will be processed 
> (not sure if that's the right word)? I guess what I'm wondering is 
> whether there could still be a problem that a chunk of XML describing 
> an interface might be processed by multiple entities, including 
> entities that the one who wrote it is unaware of (and thus can't 
> anticipate when writing the P3P policy).
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2004 06:01:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:18 UTC