- From: Nikolaj Budzyn <budzyn@ti.informatik.uni-kiel.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:41:41 +0200
- To: "Ben Wright" <Ben_Wright@compuserve.com>, <www-p3p-policy@w3.org>
> Lorrie Cantor writes: > >>The P3P specification makes it quite clear > that compact policies cannot be used in cases where > mandatory extensions have been added to P3P. An extension > that essentially nullifies a P3P statement, is clearly mandatory.<< > > This rule is evidence of how unfair the P3P state of affairs is to > corporations. If a corporation needs to add an extension in order to make > itself clear, then the Specification says it cannot use compact policies. > Yet if it cannot use compact policies, then IE 6 will block or impede > certain cookies. > > The solution I propose [...] is for the corporations > to deny the legitimacy of the Specification. I can't see anything unfair about the P3P specification: P3P is aimed at enhancing the communication between service providers und users concerning the service providers' privacy practices, thus building trust between service providers and users. So, P3P has the perspective of stimulating online transactions effectively. This is a win-win-game. Any effort taken to reduce the significance of P3P policies, e.g. by declaring them as being not binding to the service provider, risks the perspective shown by P3P. Nikolaj Budzyn
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 14:34:03 UTC