W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > June 2009

Re: ISSUE-10 Re: Geopriv compromise proposal

From: Alissa Cooper <acooper@cdt.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:56:06 -0400
Message-Id: <DA5C9FDE-2A62-4584-A8AC-E6C629EF5686@cdt.org>
To: Geolocation Working Group WG <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Jun 18, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Doug Turner wrote:

> Rigo,
> Same horse.  I do hope that you go back to the IRC logs of the f2f,  
> and the email threads over the last 8 months.  I listed about 8  
> reasons why (specially) geopriv was a bad idea for the web.  This  
> optional attribute smells alot like the same idea.

I actually think the idea of a user-specified policy is completely  
different from the idea of a site-specified policy. The implications  
for what the UA does with the policy information are totally  
different, the policies themselves will certainly not be the same, and  
the incentives for users and sites to set policies can be completely  
opposite from each other depending on what they think the outcome will  
be by setting a policy. I don't think the group can rely on  
discussions or decisions made about the former to draw conclusions  
about the latter. I'm not advocating one way or the other on the idea  
of sites expressing policy, I just don't want the two lumped together.

> Henning,
> railroaded?  really?  I think we had just about every major UA say  
> that this was a bad idea -- based on decades of experience.  I would  
> think that browser hackers are the ones being railroaded if anyone!

This is exactly why conflating these two ideas doesn't work -- based  
on however many years of experience the IE developers had at the time,  
they decided to implement support for P3P. I think it would be hard to  
argue that they think sites expressing policy is a bad idea,  
regardless of what they think about users expressing policy.

Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 21:56:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:56 UTC