- From: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 17:56:13 +0200
- To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Hi Folks, here are the minutes of today's call. Please send any corrections/questions/suggestions to me. Regards, matthias ------8<------- Participants: Lorrie Cranor Matthias Schunter Agenda (see earlier mail): 1. Goals/usecases 2. Syntax SUMMARY - we agreed that grouping consent is useful (but unclear whether for P3P 1.1 or P3P 2.0) - MTS will draft a syntax that we will float to the implementors to check whether they like it GOALS - the participant agreed that some bundling of consent is useful in practice - we were not sure whether we should aim at P3P 1.1 or P3P 2.0 - a feature that is not implemented by any agent is not very useful - as a consequence, we decided that we will elaborate a draft proposal and float this to the implementors. If agent implementors like the feature, we will aim for 1.1 otherwise 2.0 Syntax - the initial proposal from MTS was to add a 'consent-group' ID as an attribute inside the elements that are opt-in or opt-out. The reason was to identify a consent group for each opt-in/opt-out - the initial proposal was not backward compatible - in the long run, the consent should be to complete statements - as a consequence, we agreed that the consent group will be attached as an extension to <statements/> - If a statement is in a consent-group, all its elements must either be opt-in or all must be opt-out * in order to be backward compatible with the existing semantics of P3P 1.0 * In order to avoid complicated and confusing semantics (e.g., what a consent means if opt-in, opt-out, and required things are mixed). - MTS will draft a proposal. Once this is agreed within the working group, we will distribute it
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 11:58:33 UTC