Re: alternate domain relationships proposal

Yes, I'm sure that was the intention of the WG.... we spent many, many  
hours discussing this point. (And you would think we would have managed 
to come up with a non-ambiguous way of saying it...)

Lorrie


On Mar 17, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Giles Hogben wrote:

> Do you think this was the intention of the WG?
>
>> **-----Original Message-----
>> **From: public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org
>> **[mailto:public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lorrie Cranor
>> **Sent: 17 March 2004 16:41
>> **To: Giles Hogben
>> **Cc: 'Humphrey Jack'; 'public-p3p-spec'
>> **Subject: Re: alternate domain relationships proposal
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **I think the problem is the ambiguity of the word "it" in the
>> **sentence:
>> **
>> **> A policy referenced in a policy reference file can be
>> **applied only to
>> **> URIs
>> **> on the DNS (Domain Name System) host that references it.
>> **
>> **We have been interpreting this sentence to mean:
>> **
>> **A policy referenced in a policy reference file can be
>> **applied only to
>> **URIs
>> **on the DNS (Domain Name System) host that references the policy
>> **reference file.
>> **
>> **Thus in Jack's example, if forinstance.com returns a P3P header, the
>> **policy reference file it references gets applied to
>> **forinstance.com. I
>> **am pretty sure that is how it has been implemented in IE6,
>> **Netscape7,
>> **and PrivacyBird.
>> **
>> **Lorrie
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **On Mar 17, 2004, at 3:58 AM, Giles Hogben wrote:
>> **
>> **>
>> **> There seems to be something wrong with the initial argument:
>> **>
>> **> The existing P3P spec says:
>> **>
>> **> "A policy referenced in a policy reference file can be
>> **applied only to
>> **> URIs
>> **> on the DNS (Domain Name System) host that references it. Thus, for
>> **> example,
>> **> a policy reference file at the well-known location of host
>> **> www.example.com
>> **> can apply policies only to resources on www.example.com."
>> **>
>> **> So when you say
>> **>
>> **> "forinstance.com is configured to return the HTTP header
>> **>
>> **>     P3P: policyref="http://www.example.com/w3c/p3p.xml"
>> **>
>> **> This policyref can only apply to files on www.example.com
>> **>
>> **> Have I missed something in this discussion?
>> **>
>> **>
>> **>> **-----Original Message-----
>> **>> **From: public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org
>> **>> **[mailto:public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
>> **Humphrey, Jack
>> **>> **Sent: 17 March 2004 07:48
>> **>> **To: 'public-p3p-spec'
>> **>> **Subject: alternate domain relationships proposal
>> **>> **
>> **>> **
>> **>> **Based on our discussion last week, here is a draft of an
>> **>> **alternate proposal for a new "our-host" extension element
>> **>> **(renamed to distinguish from the previous proposal's
>> **>> **"known-host") with a different semantic meaning. Also
>> ****included is
>> **>> an extension to the compact policy P3P header to
>> ****support the same
>> **>> mechanism for compact policies.
>> **>> **
>> **>> **Please review this new proposal and compare to the previous
>> **>> **proposal. Is it more straightforward? Might it be less
>> ****confusing
>> **>> for implementers and user agent developers?
>> **>> **
>> **>> **Thanks. I will probably be late to the call and may have **some
>> **>> trouble participating verbally, as I will be coming
>> ****from a dental
>> **>> appointment.
>> **>> **
>> **>> **++Jack++
>> **>> **
>> **>> **
>> **>
>> **
>> **
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 11:00:58 UTC