Hi all, In the tentative writeup of the workshop it says: " The two practical proposals that drew most interest and discussions were the Mozilla privacy icon approach and CDT's privacy rule-set idea. Both also drew significant questions about their practical viability and deployability; yet, further investigation and experimentation with both approaches seems worthwhile. " I think it should rather say that we should be honest and write: " The two practical proposals that drew most interest and discussions were the Mozilla privacy icon approach and CDT's privacy rule-set idea. Both also drew significant questions from the side of browser vendors and big Web service providers about their practical viability and deployability; yet, further investigation and experimentation with both approaches seems worthwhile. " We could even mention the names of the persons / companies to make it more clear. Furthermore, I was wondering about this statement: "There was widespread agreement that further community-building work on best practices both for specification writers and implementers, and systematic privacy review of W3C specifications would be useful. " Was there really such an agreement? I recall that certain people said that it would have been nice to provide some implementation hints/user interface aspects into the geolocation specification. However, the same people were previously arguing exactly against including such text into the spec at the time when the spec was written. I don't recall anyone who had argued that there should be a systematic privacy review of W3C specifications, particularly not the guys (browser vendors & big Web service providers) who largely argued against any technical privacy mechanisms in the geolocation / Device API specs. If you take a look at the geolocation API spec today then you will see that there is very little in there about privacy. So, I am not sure where this widespread agreement has come from (given that I was at the workshop). Ciao HannesReceived on Friday, 13 August 2010 09:36:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 August 2010 09:36:33 GMT