Re: Proposal for additional deliverables in rechartering DAP

On Mar 10, 2011, at 15:07 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Mar/9/2011 9:37 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 14:44 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>>> My reasoning is that if any of the security/privacy work is to be
>>> useful, it needs to apply to already existing APIs (Geo, Accelerometer)
>>> and to APIs developed outside of this group.
>>> 
>> Yes indeed.
> 
> The use of "apply" in this context implies these two proposed deliverables are more like non-normative BP type documents. Is that what you expect?

There certainly is room for BP-type work, we've actually had that in the cards for a while but haven't had the editorial power to produce it. I think that privacy should in part be handled in a way similar to WAI: describe good practices and work with the community to spread them.

There are however more binding work items such as the Rulesets. I think that those could integrate with a Do Not Track approach (though who will be in charge of DNT is unclear at this point). I also think that they could provide common metadata that servers could use to advertise their privacy policy, which in turn could plug right into one of the privacy icons initiatives (see Aza's proposal for instance http://www.flickr.com/photos/azaraskin/4796824084/sizes/l/in/photostream/).

The latter are definitely normative, and can apply to the existing infrastructure.

> I apologize in advance for dumb-ing this down but what I'd like to understand re "relationship" here is whether for I would appreciate it if 

We need to make sure everything is dumb enough that we can all be on the same page, and if


-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 15:58:01 UTC