- From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:08:48 -0400
- To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
12 June 2003 User Agent Task Force Call Participants Lorrie Cranor Giles Hogben Brooks Dobbs Rigo Wenning Dave Stampley Ari Schwartz The full WG discussed the user agent guidelines document http://www.w3.org/P3P/2003/ua-guidelines.html on their call yesterday and decided it should be part of the P3P 1.1 spec. Lorrie proposes to include it as section 6 and will edit it accordingly. Rigo is concerned that the the user agent guidelines should make it clear that the plain English translations are not a substitute for the normative definitions. Rigo will check the language currently in the document and propose changes if he finds it inadequate. We began discussion of the 2 June translation matrix and discussed the ENTITY and ACCESS elements and some high-level issues, as follows. We have a preference for headings that do not appear in the form of a question. We have a preference for referring to the user as "you" rather than "I" or "me". We don't like the use of the phrase "this site" throughout. Here are some options (no consensus was reached on which to adopt): (a) "this provider" - but may be confused with ISP (b) "this entity" - but people aren't going to know what that means (c) use passive voice and avoid phrase - passive voice is wishy washy (d) "we" - there may be confusion about who we refers to? (e) insert name from entity element - could be legnthy (f) use "we" with a hyperlink to where the entity name is displayed ENTITY element: The group did not like either Lorrie's or Jeremy's proposal because they talk about contacting the site, which is not really what ENTITY is about according to the normative definition. The consensus was to use the phrase "This policy is issued by" instead. We had a discussion about whether a site should be able to have more than one ENTITY element. The current P3P syntax does not prohibit sites from declaring multiple duplicate entity fields, and effectively having multiple entity elements. However, there is no grouping mechanism, so user agents do not know how to display this information. W3C is an example of a site that is declaring multiple entity fields (we haven't seen others). We may want to recommend to the full WG that we (a) prohibit multiple ENTITY elements, or (b) add some sort of grouping mechanism and/or advice user agents what to do if a site has multiple ENTITY elements. Technically, it is probably easier to prohibit this. Some task force members also felt it was confusing to users to see multiple entities and that one entity should be designated to be listed. Rigo was concerned that in the case of a consortium or joint venture, multiple entities might be equally responsible. Dave said that the entity element doesn't indicate responsibility, only who the speaker is, and that it is common for joint ventures to designate a single entity as spokesperson. Rigo also said it would be convenient for users to see contact information in multiple countries so they could pick the phone number to call where they were likely to get someone who speaks their language. But others pointed out that ENTITY is not supposed to be used as a way for consumers to contact a company -- just a way to identify who the company is. The disputes element is used for contacting, and it allows multiple addresses to be listed. We need to discuss further. Lorrie has opened this on bugzilla as issue 224. ACCESS element: The group did not like Jeremy's phrasing this in the form of a question or using "I" but they liked the fact that it made it clear that the information was about the user. The consensus was to use the phrase "Your access to information about you" instead. Lorrie will post revised versions of the matrix and guidelines document shortly. Please review and provide feedback on the mailing list. Discussions of the other points we didn't resolve on the call today should also continue on the mailing list. Our next call will be on Monday, June 23 at 11 am US Eastern.
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 15:07:01 UTC