RE: [Moderator Action] privacy summary

Actually I believe the policyref snippet is valid, as "*" is assumed for
any attribute missing COOKIE-INCLUDE.  The problem is likely a bug in
IE6, which is being investigated in order to suggest a workaround.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 10:06 AM
To: Chris O'Kennon
Cc: 'www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org'; P3P-Specification-WG
Subject: Re: [Moderator Action] privacy summary


Your Policy Reference Files says:
    <POLICY-REF about="/vipnet/w3c/vipnet1.p3p">
      <INCLUDE>/*</INCLUDE>
      <COOKIE-INCLUDE/>
    </POLICY-REF>

But the Specification[1] says:
Example 2.4 states that /P3P/Policies.xml#first applies to all
cookies.
Example 2.4:
<META xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/09/P3Pv1">
 <POLICY-REFERENCES>
		  <POLICY-REF about="/P3P/Policies.xml#first">
       <COOKIE-INCLUDE name="*" value="*" domain="*" path="*"/>
   	  </POLICY-REF>
 </POLICY-REFERENCES>
</META>

This means, that I suspect, IE6 has an internal error parsing the 
Policy Reference File and therefor doesn't come to the policy...

Did you generate the PRF also with the IBM Editor?
Your policy says:
<!-- Generated by IBM P3P Policy Editor version Beta 1.8 build 9/12/01
3:31 PM

This might be an interesting bug to fix in the editor...



  1. http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P/#cookies
-- 
Rigo Wenning            W3C/INRIA
Policy Analyst          Privacy Activity Lead
mail:rigo@w3.org        2004, Routes des Lucioles
http://www.w3.org/      F-06902 Sophia Antipolis

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 10:51:19AM -0500, Chris O'Kennon wrote:
> Although the W3C validator says my page is compliant, when I use
Explorer 6
> to View the Privacy Summary, it won't list the readable privacy policy
(it
> just says to contact the web page).  Any ideas what I'm messing up, or
> where?
>  
> www.vipnet.org <http://www.vipnet.org> 
>  
> Chris
>  
> 
> *******************************************
> 
> One of the most overlooked advantages to
> computers is...  If they do foul up,
> there's no law against whacking them around
> a little.
>                 -- Joe Martin
> 
> ******************************************* 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2001 12:37:20 UTC