RE: AGENDA: 21 July P3P spec call

This is a misunderstanding!
We already have a tool to migrate old to new.
We need one to migrate new to old so as not to break backward compatibility.

>**-----Original Message-----
>**From: public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org 
>**[mailto:public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Serge 
>**Egelman (by way of Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>)
>**Sent: 21 July 2004 10:39
>**To: 'public-p3p-spec'
>**Subject: Re: AGENDA: 21 July P3P spec call
>**
>**
>**After looking through Giles' proposal, it seems that this 
>**boils down to one main problem: the new schema format 
>**conveys more information than
>**the previous one.   Using XSD allows us to do a number of important
>**things such as assigning elements to data types, ensuring 
>**that an element's value falls within a prescribed range, as 
>**well as stating how many times an element may be used.  The 
>**old format essentially enumerates the data types and states 
>**the categories to which they belong.
>**
>**Creating a tool to migrate from the old to new format 
>**involves making assumptions about how to fill in this 
>**missing information (obviously going the other way isn't an 
>**issue, since information simply gets discarded).  So it 
>**would seem that creating a tool would be possible, it's just 
>**a matter of agreeing on some conventions.  Of course I could 
>**be totally wrong, and welcome any input anyone might have.
>**
>**Thanks,
>**
>**serge
>**
>**On Jul 19, 2004, at 3:03 PM, Lorrie Cranor wrote:
>**> The next P3P specification group conference call will be 
>**on Wednesday, 
>**> July 21, 2004, 11 am - 12 pm US Eastern. Dial-in information is 
>**> available at 
>**> http://www.w3.org/P3P/Group/Specification/1.1/meetings.html
>**>
>**> 1. XML schema stuff
>**> We're still looking for feedback from implementers. Serge will be 
>**> sending more info on the possibility of a translation tool shortly.
>**> 
>**http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2004Jun/0017.html
>**>
>**> 2. Rechartering timeline - the charter for this working 
>**group expired. 
>**> Rigo is drafting a new charter 
>**> 
>**http://www.w3.org/P3P/Group/Specification/040719-charter.html
>** [member 
>**> only]. The main difference from our old charter is the 
>**timeline. We 
>**> expect to be ready for last call in August and then for Candidate 
>**> Recommendation by November (maybe earlier?). We can't exit 
>**CR until we 
>**> have met exit criteria (which means we need 
>**implementations). What is 
>**> a realistic schedule for getting P3P 1.1 implementations 
>**out that we 
>**> can use to meet our exit criteria?
>**>
>**> 3. Exit criteria. We need to have a set of criteria for 
>**when we will 
>**> know that P3P 1.1 has been sufficiently tested and implemented to 
>**> become a Proposed Recommendations. I have cut and paste the P3P1.0 
>**> exit criteria (from 
>**http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-P3P-20001215/) to the 
>**> end of this message. We have plenty of time to work out 
>**the details, 
>**> but I would like to start the discussion about what our 
>**exit criteria 
>**> are going to look like. Typically, W3C specs have two 
>**implementations 
>**> of all features as part of their exit criteria. We also have the 
>**> option of designating certain features as "at risk" and 
>**removing them 
>**> if they are not implemented by the deadline we specify. 
>**For all the 
>**> gory details of the W3C process for getting in and out of 
>**candidate 
>**> recommendation, see 
>**> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#cfi
>**>
>**> 4. Schedule next call (August 11?)
>**>
>**>
>**>
>**> ---
>**>
>**> P3P 1.0 Exit Criteria
>**>
>**> The Candidate Recommendation review period ends once the 
>**milestones 
>**> below are achieved. Input from implementors will be 
>**accepted at least 
>**> through 15 March 2001.
>**>
>**>  The milestones are:
>**> 	1.  	 at least one P3P user agent implementation 
>**integrated into an
>**> HTTP user agent  capable of fetching HTML files that 
>**includes all of 
>**> the functionality required  and recommended by this specification
>**> 	2.  	 a second P3P user agent implementation of each 
>**specified
>**> function (these  functions may be demonstrated across 
>**several partial 
>**> P3P implementations  or they may be demonstrated in a 
>**second full P3P
>**> implementation)
>**> 	3.  	 at least one special-purpose tool for 
>**generating P3P policies
>**> and policy  reference files
>**> 	4.  	 at least one tool for converting full P3P 
>**policies to compact
>**> policies
>**> 	5.  	 at least 10 P3P-enabled production web sites
>**> 	6.  	 at least one web site that illustrates each of 
>**the example
>**> scenarios in  Section 2.5 of the P3P1.0 specification  as 
>**well as at 
>**> least one web site that uses mini-policies (these may be either 
>**> production web sites or demonstration sites)
>**>
>**>  Furthermore during the Candidate Recommendation review 
>**period, the 
>**> Working Group will:
>**> 	1.  	 Prepare a W3C Note describing RDF data models 
>**representing P3P
>**> policies and  policy reference files.
>**> 	2.  	 Submit an Internet Draft to the IETF 
>**describing the P3P header
>**> and request  that an RFC be issued documenting this header.
>**> 	3.  	 Prepare a set of test policies and policy 
>**reference files that
>**> user agent  implementers can use to demonstrate that their 
>**> implementations behave correctly.  This should include examples of 
>**> policies that contain syntax errors.
>**> 	4.  	 Specify the appropriate behavior for user agents upon
>**> encountering  a  policy with invalid syntax.
>**>
>**>  The working group also encourages implementors to explore the 
>**> possibility of implementations in web proxies and mobile 
>**devices, as 
>**> well as implementations that can import user preferences using the 
>**> [APPEL]  language.
>**>
>**>  Please send review comments to www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org 
>**> (publicly archived).
>**>
>**>  Should this specification prove very difficult or impossible to 
>**> implement, the Working Group will return the document to 
>**Working Draft 
>**> status and make necessary changes. Otherwise, the Working Group 
>**> anticipates asking the W3C Director to advance this document to 
>**> Proposed Recommendation.
>**
>**___
>**/*
>**Serge Egelman
>**
>**"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible." 
>**--Frank Zappa */
>**

Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 06:04:44 UTC