- From: Marc Langheinrich <langhein@inf.ethz.ch>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 18:29:10 +0200
- To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
minutes 28 may 2003 spec group task force call participants lorrie cranor - at&t research (chair) giles hogben - jrc patrick hung - csiro rigo wennig - w3c marc langheinrich - eth zurich (minutes) 1. taskforce reports =========================================================================== - p3p beyond http: [skipped, joe not there] - user agent behavior: [lorrie] lorrie: ua makes progress. has guidelines, would like the rest of the group to have a look at, and get feedback. lorrie will schedule for next phone call also making progress re: translations. if anybody else has proposals, speak up (microsoft hinted that they might). otherwise they'll go ahead with lorries proposal. rigo worried that semantics might get redefined. lorrie: no, we use a matrix that shows side to side our wording and official p3p definitions, and they strife to make these consistent rigo: challenging lorrie: yes, so please, if you reading it and notice changes in semantics, please let us know. ACTION: lorrie will send out more info to solicit feedback. - compact policies: [skipped, brian not there] lorrie tried to contact brian, since nothing is happening there, suggested adding co-chair. lorrie has volunteer (brooks), but will need to talk to brian before adding a co-chair. - article10: [giles] giles: meeting last friday didn't happen due to screw-ups in brussels. rigo and i went back and forth and got together suggested text. will send it out to brussels to get their comments rigo: we're still discussing the issues together, and we still have some substantial disagreements between us, like i feel many things are already in the specs and they just need explanations, etc. but coordination is a bit difficult. bottom line is, that we're moving forward. we got some concrete text suggestions that we're working on. document is already online, so people can comment on points (you can find it off the documents page) - agent and domains: [skipped, jack not there] - consent choices: [skipped, matthias not there] - dataschemas: [giles] giles: i discovered previous attempt, done by yuichi. but it's worth starting again, since too much has changed since. but no progress on my side yet. - signed policies: [giles] giles: still no progress. lorrie: are you waiting for something from us? giles: no, no, just need compelling reason for doing that... ACTION: lorrie will record this in bugzilla: find p3p policies that are waiting to have signed policies etc. (from seal providers, etc) 2. consent choices working draft (matthias not there, but lorrie will explain) =========================================================================== - rigo had looked at draft. - lorrie: draft was motivated by the fact that most websites that allowed opt-in or opt-out would only allow choices in bundles, i.e. all recipients or none. so idea was to have indicator in p3p policy that would show you such bundles. maybe in p3p2 you could even have automated process to do so. matthias came up with attribute using extension mechanism, allowing you to label statements as belonging to a certain statement group. so question (again is): is there demand for sth like this in 1.1? otherwise we should table it for version 2... - rigo: i find it useful, simply because you also tried this in the ui already. this reduces complexity, as the server can already indicate what is possible to opt-in or opt-out of... i'm in favor. - lorrie: another idea was to label "related" statement, so same mechanism could also be useful for that. [no other comments] let's get some more feedback from user agent implementors... 3. bugzilla 178: missing postal code, etc. in demographic defnition. =========================================================================== - rigo: isn't this just an errata? - lorrie: could also be a minor change... - marc: drawbacks? - rigo: procedures only. errata would mean that we have an errata document that we need to incorporate later into 1.0 - lorrie: we already have errata items, so we aren't really following process already. - rigo: maybe not yet... we just got chartered, so clock wasn't ticking yet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEAR HEAR: WE'VE NOW BEEN CHARTERED. WE'VE BEEN RECHARTERED ON MAY 26! [rigo reports] rigo will send some note on this out to list... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION: lorrie will put exact wording into bugzilla to get massimo copy this into errata document... 4. bugzilla 168: adding human-readable fields to (almost) all elements in p3p =========================================================================== - rigo: can we add this as attribute? - lorrie: no, extension mechanism wouldn't allow this. though if we feel that this is very important, we could revisit our own guidelines re: backwards compatibility. - marc: so this would be added in the schema? - lorrie: well, we'd use the extension mechanism - rigo: so 1.1 would be a whole new spec, i don't intend to publish a diff - lorrie: no, but we don't want a new namespace. unless we come up with a showstopper, we won't change the schema, for backwards compatibility. - marc: sounds messy. which elements would need this, anyway? - lorrie: purpose doesn't have it. data doesn't have it. the best would be to have the same mechanism as we did with the "OTHER" purpose element, where an explanation could be placed between opening and closing tag. but probably not possible with extension tag... - marc: maybe even a problematic thing if people come up with their own explanations for the purposes... - rigo: right, ideally suited for mean people or lawyers, this could blow up any compact rendering of policies by user agents... ACTION: lorrie will schedule this for further discussion on later calls. people should look at where such strings would be good to have, and where they have more advantages than drawbacks... 5. bugzilla 170: definition of CONSEQUENCE field is not really obvious =========================================================================== - rigo: i never understood "benefit" piece of the definition anyway, so relabeling shouldn't really have compatibility issues. also, you where the first to use it this way, and now everybody uses it... - lorrie: right, also user tests show that people use it to make discussions. nobody was against rephrasing this... - rigo: we could also place a limit on the length while we're at it... - lorrie: good idea. could do this even without changing the schema... ACTION: lorrie will send out some new wording that could be part of the 1.1 spec. 6. next date: june 11 worked for everybody. =========================================================================== ACTION: rigo will update homepage with meeting times. -- Marc Langheinrich <langhein@inf.ethz.ch> Institute for Pervasive Computing Dept. of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, IFW D48.2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland fon: +41-1-632-0688, fax: +41-1-632-1659, web: www.inf.ethz.ch/~langhein/
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2003 12:29:13 UTC