Re: Geopriv compromise proposal

Richard Barnes wrote:
> In advance of the Last Call, I wanted to make one more pass at trying 
> to arrive at a compromise on the Geopriv idea of including rules 
> alongside a position object.  A proposed update to the draft, and a 
> diff, are posted at the following URLs:
> <http://geopriv.dreamhosters.com/w3c/spec-source-priv.html>
> <http://geopriv.dreamhosters.com/w3c/spec-source-diff.html>
>
> The only change that these documents make is to add a "rules" element 
> to the "Position" interface that allows the user to make additional 
> grants of permission, beyond what the Privacy Considerations allow.  
> For example, the rules element can specify that it's ok for the 
> recipient to retransmit a location or store it.
>
> The most important thing to note about this proposal is that it is 
> purely optional for both UAs and recipients: UAs don't have to set 
> privacy rules (if the user is OK with the default privacy 
> considerations) and recipients don't have to look for privacy rules 
> (if they're willing to stay within the existing privacy 
> considerations). All the software out there that conforms to the 
> current spec also conforms with the modified spec.
>
> These rules just offer another avenue for users to provide permissions 
> to web sites.  For sites that already have a rich relationship with 
> users (e.g., facebook), this might not add much value -- although it 
> does allow them to be more adaptible to individual users' needs in 
> some cases.  The major benefit of these rules is to save new sites (or 
> newly geo-enabled sites) the effort of crafting extensive privacy 
> policies and interfaces, while still allowing them to do more 
> interesting things than the default privacy considerations allow.
>
> Given the minimal impact of these changes, and the large possible 
> benefit, I would like to propose that the changes be incorporated into 
> the current draft before last call.
>
> Thanks,
> --Richard
>
>
Hi Richard,

Speaking on behalf of both Angel and myself, we appreciate your 
constructive attitude on this topic.
It is however clear from the feedback your proposal has received that 
there's no majority consensus to incorporate these changes into the 
specification.

Lars Erik

Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 11:50:11 UTC