ISSUE-10 Re: Geopriv compromise proposal

On Thursday 18 June 2009, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Rigo, we have now decided on this (please see the Chairs' earlier
> email). I really appreciate your contribution but I think it's time to
> move on.
> 
Dear Andrei, 

I tried to be helpful, I wanted to have an issue opened 
that clearly expresses what I was suggesting. I look at this 
issue and I find it closed the same day while we were still 
in discussion. 
Not only that. I find in ISSUE-10 the same bogus argumentation 
that I clearly rebutted again below. It is used as the central 
argument for closing the issue. This is very rude. I will 
accept real arguments but not the bogus arguments given in 
there. This group has to invest 2 more neurons to get rid of me.

Tell me why it is expensive to ignore an optional attribute?

I clearly say here that I'm not satisfied with the way this group
closes this issue.

If you don't have real arguments, do it. It will take less time:
add an attribute to PostionOptions interface:
=========================================snip========
[NoInterfaceObject]
  interface PositionOptions {
    attribute boolean enableHighAccuracy;
    attribute long timeout;
    attribute long maximumAge;
    attribute  URI policy;
  };

The policy attribute is optional. The policy attribute carries a URI 
that points to policy file (e.g. XACML, P3P, EPAL). A user agent knowing 
about the policy format found at the URI given may help the user with the 
decision making in the sense of section [Security and privacy considerations]
The policy file linked by the attribute has the same scope as the location 
request it attributed to.

User agents that do not understand any policy language MUST ignore this 
attribute. User agents that know about a policy language, but do not know 
about the namespace of the policy under the given URI MUST ignore 
this attribute.

=========================================snap========

Additionaly write in your CR exit criteria: 
Two interoperable implementations with all SHOULDS and MUSTS except for the 
optional policy attribute.

I hear a "we" as chairs go for Last call with open issues
http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/issues/open

Having open issues isn't the point in time to go for last call.

I WANT this email linked from the issue tracker under ISSUE-10

I consider ISSUE-10 closed if there is a response other than "delivering 
content to the user by a browser makes the user believe the browser 
makes an assertion". It is not a statement by the browser and never 
will be. A policy will NEVER state: "I the browser, tell you that 
your location information will be used in a certain way". (If you 
make such an assertion in your browser, call you legal department NOW)
A policy will always indicate who makes that statement: "I, service 
A, make the following promises". Otherwise it is no serious 
policy and can just be ignored. If you don't believe them, turn 
off location sharing or even turn on TOR and here goes your 
enforcement. Saying "there is no enforcement" I could just as well 
ask "why isn't there a TOR implementation natively in the browser"?


Best, 

Rigo