- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 09:22:46 +0200
- To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Cc: ifette@google.com, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Jonathan, it would be nice if you could explain how you imagine which policy will prevail over which other policy in case of (unwanted but probable) conflict and whether a policy can overwrite the compliance specification's semantics. Because mainly, we would have 3 policy statements now: P3P, human readable legalese and the compliance spec. All those are triggered if the user sends DNT. What would be the meaning of those policies (other than the Compliance Spec) Rigo On Saturday 05 May 2012 09:51:22 Jonathan Mayer wrote: > 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.
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 07:23:24 UTC