Re: 5.2.2 Policy representation

I also favor P3P RIP. If there does happen to be sufficient interest, I suppose we might add a new field (e.g. "p3p") independent of the "policy" field.


On Friday, May 4, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:

> 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 (mailto: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 (mailto: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
> >  
> >  
> >  
>