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

Re: 5.2.2 Policy representation

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 09:22:46 +0200
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Cc: ifette@google.com, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3776944.gH7MCnd8gy@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Jonathan, 

it would be nice if you could explain how you imagine which policy will 
prevail over which other policy in case of (unwanted but probable) conflict 
and whether a policy can overwrite the compliance specification's semantics. 
Because mainly, we would have 3 policy statements now: P3P, human readable 
legalese and the compliance spec. All those are triggered if the user sends 
DNT. What would be the meaning of those policies (other than the Compliance 
Spec)

Rigo

On Saturday 05 May 2012 09:51:22 Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> I also favor P3P RIP. If there does happen to be sufficient interest, I
> suppose we might add a new field (e.g. "p3p") independent of the "policy"
> field.
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 07:23:24 UTC

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