Re: Fwd: RESPONSE NEEDED: P3P 1.1 note publication and working group close from Joseph Reagle on 2006-11-08 (public-p3p-spec@w3.org from November 2006)

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:10:19 -0500
To: public-p3p-spec <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200611081210.19752.reagle@mit.edu>

On Wednesday 08 November 2006 10:30, Lorrie Cranor wrote:
> > RESPONSE NEEDED:
> > Please review the draft at http://www.w3.org/P3P/2006/WD- 
> > P3P11-20061006.html (or just the changes if you reviewed the Last  
> > Call) and send an email to this mailing list indicating a yes or no  
> > vote for proceeding with a W3C Note publication.

YES. I haven't been following the work, nor looked closely at "20061006" but 
I can't imagine there'd be any harm in publishing it as a NOTE. But I am 
curious as to what is meant by:

>I would urge anyone doing P3P  
> implementations to include elements from the P3P 1.1 draft, all of  
> which are backwards compatible with P3P 1.0.

Meaning they could be used by a service but ignored by a P3P1.0 client?

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 17:10:45 UTC