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

Fwd: Compact BDS - format

From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie+@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:34:23 -0500
Message-Id: <3565D2E0-3724-11D9-B87E-000A95DA3F5A@cs.cmu.edu>
To: 'public-p3p-spec' <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Giles Hogben" <giles.hogben@jrc.it>
> Date: November 15, 2004 3:43:29 AM EST
> To: "'Lorrie Cranor'" <lorrie+@cs.cmu.edu>
> Subject: RE: Compact BDS - format
>
> This is the wrong syntax. The most recent spec was like this: <CATEGORY
> type="uniqueid"> <CATEGORY type="navigation">
>
> If this is not reflected in the examples, there is something 
> wrong...let me
> know.
>
>> **-----Original Message-----
>> **From: public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org
>> **[mailto:public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lorrie Cranor
>> **Sent: 12 November 2004 17:29
>> **To: Rigo Wenning
>> **Cc: public-p3p-spec@w3.org; Giles Hogben
>> **Subject: Re: Compact BDS - format
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **Why aren't the categories XML elements like they are in P3P 1.0? If
>> **they were, we wouldn't have this problem.
>> **
>> **Lorrie
>> **
>> **
>> **On Nov 12, 2004, at 5:11 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
>> **
>> **> 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 Monday, 15 November 2004 16:34:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.22 : Monday, 15 November 2004 16:34:27 GMT