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

Compact BDS - format

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:11:32 +0100
To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Cc: Giles Hogben <giles.hogben@jrc.it>
Message-Id: <200411121111.33215.rigo@w3.org>
The spec currently says: 

<quote>
========================================================================
Note that while user preferences can list such variable data elements 
without any additional category information (effectively expressing 
preferences over any usage of this element), services MUST always 
explicitly specify the categories that apply to the usage of a variable 
data element in their particular policy. This information has to appear 
as a category element in the corresponding DATA element listed in the 
policy, for example as in:

<datatype>
  <dynamic>
    <cookies>
      <CATEGORY>uniqueid</CATEGORY>
    </cookies>
  </dynamic>
</datatype>

where a service declares that cookies are used to recognize the user at 
this site (i.e. category Unique Identifiers).


If a service wants to declare that a data element is in multiple 
categories, it simply declares the corresponding categories as in:

<datatype>
  <dynamic>
    <cookies>
      <CATEGORY>
        preference
      </CATEGORY>
      <CATEGORY>
        uniqueid
      </CATEGORY>
    </cookies>
  </dynamic>
</datatype>

With the above declaration a service announces that it uses cookies both 
to recognize the user at this site and for storing user preference 
data. Note that for the purpose of P3P there is no difference whether 
this information is stored in two separate cookies or in a single one.
========================================================================

If we take a compact notation, this should read

<datatype>
  <dynamic>
    <cookies>
     <category>
       preferences
       uniqueid
     </category>
    </cookies>
  </dynamic>
</datatypes>

We miss a separator between "preferences" and "uniqueid". Does this mean 
we cannot use the compact notation here? Or should we invent some 
general separator in case of multiple terms?

Best, 

Rigo

Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 15:08:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.22 : Friday, 12 November 2004 15:08:05 GMT