Re: 5.2.2 Policy representation

I think we have already seen that we cannot use P3P for large, complex
sites. I would be opposed to creating further dependencies / reliance on
P3P. It was a good idea, but we should let it rest in peace...

-Ian

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:31 AM, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Good point!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:30 AM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Cc: JC Cannon
> Subject: Re: 5.2.2 Policy representation
>
> On Friday 04 May 2012 15:18:09 JC Cannon wrote:
> > Do we really want to mix P3P and DNT? Or are you saying this is one
> > option for defining the policy file?
>
> Aren't we doing that already with the response file?
>
> Rigo
>
>
>
>