- 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