W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > May 2012

Re: 5.2.2 Policy representation

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 10:33:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8dxtKrmFBMYUkGjenhsG9tvCMJ16F0_s=h95UnLqUTejA@mail.gmail.com>
To: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I think we have already seen that we cannot use P3P for large, complex
sites. I would be opposed to creating further dependencies / reliance on
P3P. It was a good idea, but we should let it rest in peace...

-Ian

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:31 AM, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Good point!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:30 AM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Cc: JC Cannon
> Subject: Re: 5.2.2 Policy representation
>
> On Friday 04 May 2012 15:18:09 JC Cannon wrote:
> > Do we really want to mix P3P and DNT? Or are you saying this is one
> > option for defining the policy file?
>
> Aren't we doing that already with the response file?
>
> Rigo
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 17:34:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC