- From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:02:22 -0500
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org>
Dan, I would like to follow up on your message to www-p3p-public-comments on June 24, 2001 [1]. I understand that Rigo and Massimo have discussed this issue with you, and I had assumed it had been resolved. However, as I can find no documentation that this issue has been resolved, I am sending you a reply now. We would appreciate it if you would respond to us as soon as possible to let us know whether this response is satisfactory. I understand from Rigo and Massimo that your primary concern has to do with the P3P group attempting to "reserve" the name /w3c/p3p.xml. While our specification explains how to use a file by this name, we do not prevent a file by this name from being used for other purposes. In your message you said: > This /w3c/p3p.xml well-known location looks like > a bad idea. > > This and the .favico and /robots.txt thingies are bad: they shift > the choice of what name to choose for some resource > from the publisher to the technology designer. > > By way of suggested alternative, I propose to delete > the /w3c/p3p.xml stuff altogether; the > P3P extension header is sufficient. The working group considered this concern, but has come to the conclusion that the well-known location is, indeed, the best solution to the problem of allowing user agents to quickly locate the metadata necessary to evaluate a web site's privacy policy prior to making a request that could potentially reveal personal information. Furthermore, the well-known location is the easiest mechanism for web sites to make known the location of their policy reference file, as it does not require any server configuration or editing a potentially large number of files. Almost all the early adopters of P3P have chosen to place their policy reference file at the well-known location. Other than the philosophical issue you point out about shifting the choice of what to name a resource, we find no problems with our use of the well-known location. We do offer alternatives to sites who don't wish to use this mechanism. And our use of the name /w3c/p3p.xml does not prevent the name from being used for unrelated purposes, as a P3P user agent will check the xmlns attribute of any XML it finds at that location before assuming that it has found a P3P policy reference file. We do not believe the P3P extension header is sufficient, as use of this header does not allow the discovery of a policy reference file prior to making a request that could potentially reveal personal information. Furthermore, use of the header is infeasible for many (mostly non-commercial) web sites. Regards, Lorrie Cranor P3P Specification Working Group Chair [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-p3p-public-comments/2001Jun/0002.htm l
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 15:02:47 UTC