RE: comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-P3P/basedata.html

Daniel,

In your note, you said that you decided to table the issue
of alignment of P3P with vCard because you were rushed
toward getting your last call draft out.

However, the Electronic Commerce Markup Language Alliance (ECML)
apparently has claimed this very part of the P3P draft as the
precedent for the same schema in their own specification.
Donald Eastlake told me that he was just following you!

# the naming of fields follows, closely, the W3C
# P3P Base Schema.  See
# <http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-P3P/basedata.html#Names>.  Why don't you go
# argue with them for a while see if they will change?

Unfortunately, P3P didn't address this issue; had you, we might
have been able to modify ECML before the publication of RFC 2706.

I would at least request that if you cannot address the issue
of vCard alignment and international considerations in address
fields before the next working draft is published, that you
at the very least add a warning in the text corresponding
to the IESG note that

  "Implementors of this specification
   are warned that this data model is heavily biased toward conventions
   used in the United States, and the English language.  As such it is
   unlikely to be suitable for international or multilingual use in the
   global Internet."

and point out the discrepancy between the schema specified
and the source cited.

Larry
-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel LaLiberte [mailto:liberte@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 7:05 AM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: Daniel LaLiberte; Ted Smith; Frank Dawson; Mark Day;
> lorrie@research.att.com
> Subject: FW: comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-P3P/basedata.html
> 
> 
> Larry,
> 
> Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, but many things have been
> happening in the last couple months.
> 
> We did consider vcard again recently, within the last month.  But,
> although we are interested in incorporating vcard vocabulary and
> semantics, we are not sure what form it should take within P3P.  Due to
> the rush to put out the last call of the P3P spec
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P), we decided to table the issue until we could
> give it more in-depth consideration.  We are also looking at
> alternatives to schema specifications, both in syntax and semantics,
> that might have an impact on how we could use vcard.
> 
> By the way, we are confident that putting out the last call of the P3P
> spec was the correct thing to do at this time because we believe the
> current "niche" occupied by the spec is appropriate, although many
> aspects of the syntax and semantics may change.  At this time, we are
> asking for more input, so we appreciate yours.
> 
> -- 
> Daniel LaLiberte             mailto:liberte@w3.org  phone:+1-617-253-0205  
> NE43-344                     World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)   
> 545 Technology Square        http://www.w3.org/People/LaLiberte/
> Cambridge MA 02139
> 
> 
> Larry Masinter writes:
>  > I posted this on August 23 to www-p3p-public-comments. and have not
>  > received a reply. I think the current P3P specification
>  > has made some simple blunders in specifying names and
>  > addresses, that other groups are following because they don't
>  > know any better (most recently, the ECOM group was following
>  > P3P.)
>  > 
>  > I think the P3P draft should revise all of the name, address,
>  > contact information to actually be consistent with today's
>  > vCard for address information in RFC 2426, against
>  > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawson-vcard-xml-dtd-03.txt
>  > 
>  > 
>  > Larry
>  > -- 
>  > http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
>  > 
>  > 
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Larry Masinter [mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com] 
>  > Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 4:50 PM
>  > To: www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org
>  > Cc: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
>  > Subject: comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-P3P/basedata.html
>  > 
>  > 
>  > This document makes reference to the 'vcard' specification, but it
>  > still goes on to make some simple international blunders that
>  > vcard has avoided; for example, it defines 'first name' and
>  > 'last name' instead of 'given name' and 'family name', it doesn't
>  > define an appropriate scope for international telephone numbers.
>  > 
>  > Almost every data type in this specification has problems
>  > that have been solved in the vCard specification.
>  > 
>  > RFC 2426 represents a more recent reference for vCard, and I think
>  > a more appropriate basis for defining a base level of fields and
>  > values for describing personal information.
>  > 
>  > Larry
>  > -- 
>  > http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
>  > 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 5 November 1999 15:43:00 UTC