Larry Masinter: > >It was hard to separate your quotation from your statement, but I think >you said: > >> My proposal does not put the privacy policy inside the state mgt >> mechanism. A separate PICS-Label header is used. It merely >> establishes how you relate cookie handling to privacy policies. Do >> you think it is unnecessary to establish that link (from within the >> http protocol)? > >I think a privacy policy should be more comprehensive than merely a >policy about cookie handling, so a Pics-Label header that's solely >useful for labelling cookies seems pretty useless to me. Larry, would you be happy with a spec which defines a) an extensible Pics-Label header for conveying information about privacy policies b) the specific cookie-related instance of this extensible header? Or are you saying that this is to weak, and that we need a complete, comprehensive scheme which handles cookies, passwords, business cards, and so on, under a single unified unterface? I would be with you on calling for an extensible header, but a call for the development of a comprehensive scheme goes too far for me. In my opinion, a call for completeness will guarantee that there will never be any convergence (because too many people with advertising business models will be opposed to it), and I want to see convergence on something which improves on the current cookie situation, even if it does nothing more than that. >Larry Koen.Received on Tuesday, 2 September 1997 12:24:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC