- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:20:08 -0400
- To: Ben Wright <Ben_Wright@compuserve.com>, P3P Policy <www-p3p-policy@w3.org>
On Thursday 23 August 2001 15:45, Ben Wright wrote:
> I see in the update for P3P specification section 4.2 that "If an
> unrecognized token appears in a compact policy, the compact policy has the
> same semantics as if that token was not present."
> http://www.w3.org/P3P/updates.html
I'm not familiar with the nuances of compact policies, but this approach
seems sound to me. Otherwise, how would anyone place their confidence in a
P3P statement?
> I would be happy to hear other thoughts anyone wishes to share about this
> idea.
See
http://www.w3.org/TR/md-policy-design#_Conflicting_Semantics
3.4.2 Conflicting Semantics
3. Now, what happens if a third party creates a schema with an
attribute P3P_change_our_mind. The presence of this attribute with
a value of 1 means that the service reserves the right to change
the expressed policies of the P3P proposal at their pleasure. This
in fact tries to redefine the semantics of the P3P schema. Has the
site now relieved itself of an obligation to abide by the terms of
a P3P proposal? Not to a P3P application. A P3P application is
only obligated to understand the semantics of the P3P
specification and schema.
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 16:20:10 UTC