- From: Mark Lizar <info@smartspecies.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:49:42 +0100
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Renato Iannella <renato@iannella.it>, public-privacy@w3.org
I agree, for example, there seems to be a few steps that are missing before even a policy language can be appropriately considered. For instance a basic standard for physical notices to be built upon may greatly help the effort. A common location, a common process, and a designated standards body for standardising a format for notices I think would be a good baby step in the right direction. Perhaps if this type of format was extensible a notice format could be built and used as a template which could then be used for privacy policies, which I understand to be just a specific type of notice. I would imagine that dealing with the fundamentals first would make notices much more accessible on many levels. - Mark On 16 Aug 2010, at 08:07, David Singer wrote: > I think one of the realizations of the workshop is that policy > languages are at best only part of the struggle with privacy > issues. PLING seems focused on policy languages (as its name > indicates). > > > On Aug 15, 2010, at 14:46 , Thomas Roessler wrote: > >> On 15 Aug 2010, at 14:39, Renato Iannella wrote: >> >>> I think W3C does not need *another* Interest Group on >>> Privacy .....I think the time is ripe for a Working Group to >>> develop *real* outcomes....then you will get the *real* commitment >>> if the community knows that a *real* spec will be developed... >>> >>> The whole world is screaming for better privacy support on the >>> Web...is W3C listening? >> >> The hard part isn't setting up a W3C working group -- the hard part >> is putting ideas on the table that are effective, implementable, >> and deployable. > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. > >
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 11:56:04 UTC