- From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:43:40 -0400
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Rigo,
We discussed this on the call and basically the consensus was that
while we understood your alternative view point, we could not
understand what was wrong with Ari's approach *in addition* to yours.
Ari did take into account your suggestions, but he was having trouble
figuring out how to satisfy you as well as the people who thought it
made more sense the way he approached it in the first place. I
suggested to Ari that he use both approaches in the document, since
some resinate with some people and other resinate with others. So his
latest draft represents his attempt to satisfy everyone. It is of
course open for further discussion, and we will discuss it on the call
this week and perhaps you can help us understand why we should take
*only* your approach and not both approaches.
Lorrie
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 01:17 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
>
> Ari,
>
> you have _not_ taken into account my lengthy comments nor the comments
> from Robert Horn _not_ to mix usage/storage/type into the term
> identity.
> The idea expressed below is still the same.
>
> This will create heavy confusion as scope, processing and purpose are
> mixed together. I think we should work it out together. Your
> definitions
> sound compelling only at a first glance.
>
> Rigo
>
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 12:22:35PM -0400, Ari Schwartz wrote:
>> Identity Through Usage ("identified" data)
> [...]
>>
>> Identity Through Storage ("non-identifiable" and "linked" data)
> [...]
>>
>> Identity Through Information Type
>>
> [...]
>
Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 14:40:44 UTC