Thank you for you comments. Lorrie Cantor writes: >>The P3P specification makes it quite clear that compact policies cannot be used in cases where mandatory extensions have been added to P3P. An extension that essentially nullifies a P3P statement, is clearly mandatory.<< This rule is evidence of how unfair the P3P state of affairs is to corporations. If a corporation needs to add an extension in order to make itself clear, then the Specification says it cannot use compact policies. Yet if it cannot use compact policies, then IE 6 will block or impede certain cookies. Corporations are faced with a Catch-22. They would be fools to accept it. The solution I propose (http://www.disavowp3p.com) is for the corporations to deny the legitimacy of the Specification. Effectively, the corporation using my idea declares that the Specification has no authority over the corporation. --Ben Benjamin Wright Attorney and Founding Author, The Law of Electronic Commerce Dallas, Texas tel 214-403-6642 ben_wright@compuserve.com http://wright.safeshopper.comReceived on Thursday, 20 September 2001 10:55:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Monday, 4 July 2005 12:06:45 GMT