- From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie+@cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:34:14 -0500
- To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-p3p-spec <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
On Nov 8, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote: > > 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? > > The new P3P 1.1 elements were added using the P3P 1.0 extension mechanism as optional extensions. Thus a service could use them and a P3P client unfamiliar with them could easily ignore them. Lorrie
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 16:34:32 UTC