Please provide a plausible use case where a website would legitimately and lawfully make inconsistent privacy representations. On Monday, May 7, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > 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 09:46:24 UTC