Re: well-known /w3c/p3p.xml

Lorrie Cranor wrote:
[...]
> 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.

I suppose... my main concern is that W3C would endorse this
design choice without reservation, as if to say "we
recommend this style of design. Everybody, come on and
reserve a well-known name for your new technology!"

I don't have a good argument just now for why that's bad just now.
I think there is one; I'll try to elaborate.

But if you haven't heard from my by, say, this Thursday,
you can assume I find your response satisfactory.



I note that Mark N. made a relevant technical suggestion
recently:

  discovering site metadata
  Mark Nottingham (Wed, Dec 05 2001) 
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/2001NovDec/0099.html


I'm copying him in case he can help elucidate why
reserved names in HTTP space are bad... maybe
help me suggest some text of an editorial
NOTE for the P3P spec so that at least if
somebody says "I'm doing a well-known name
just like P3P does" we can say "but P3P
chose that because they had to, not because
its a good design."


> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-p3p-public-comments/2001Jun/0002.htm
> l

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 15:48:50 UTC