W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > November 2006

Re: RESPONSE NEEDED: P3P 1.1 note publication and working group close

From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie+@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:34:14 -0500
Message-Id: <60653B72-8422-4606-843A-E726EC1CBE2B@cs.cmu.edu>
Cc: public-p3p-spec <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu>

On Nov 8, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:

> On Wednesday 08 November 2006 10:30, Lorrie Cranor wrote:
>>> Please review the draft at http://www.w3.org/P3P/2006/WD-
>>> P3P11-20061006.html (or just the changes if you reviewed the Last
>>> Call) and send an email to this mailing list indicating a yes or no
>>> vote for proceeding with a W3C Note publication.
> YES. I haven't been following the work, nor looked closely at  
> "20061006" but
> I can't imagine there'd be any harm in publishing it as a NOTE. But  
> I am
> curious as to what is meant by:
>> I would urge anyone doing P3P
>> implementations to include elements from the P3P 1.1 draft, all of
>> which are backwards compatible with P3P 1.0.
> Meaning they could be used by a service but ignored by a P3P1.0  
> client?

The new P3P 1.1 elements were added using the P3P 1.0 extension  
mechanism as optional extensions. Thus a service could use them and a  
P3P client unfamiliar with them could easily ignore them.

Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 16:34:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 November 2006 16:34:33 GMT