-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[TAG] Proposal to obsolete P3P, PICS*, CC/PP*, POWDER #86
Labels
Comments
I see arguments in favor of obsoleting; I don't see arguments against. If they are somewhere else, maybe they could be linked to this issue? |
Oh no! We missed celebrating the five-year anniversary of this issue, back in August! 🎂 |
Note: P3P was obsoleted in 2018: http://www.w3.org/TR/2018/OBSL-P3P-20180830/ |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
title, URL of the document to be obsoleted
https://www.w3.org/TR/?title=cc%2Fpp
https://www.w3.org/TR/?title=pics
https://www.w3.org/TR/?title=powder
title, URL of the newer version
None.
Link to group's decision to request obsoleting
https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2018/04-tokyo/04-06-minutes.md
Rationale
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2017Apr/0010.html
PICS encompasses a set of four Recommendations from 1997 and 1998,
namely PICS Signed Labels (DSig) 1.0 Specification, PICS 1.1 Label
Distribution -- Label Syntax and Communication Protocols, PICS 1.1
Rating Services and Rating Systems -- and Their Machine Readable
Descriptions, and PICSRules 1.1 Specification. In 2009, PICS was revised
to indicate that its specifications had been superseded.
Accordingly, W3C does not believe PICS has sufficient market relevance
to continue recommending that the community implement it.
In the case of POWDER, it is in the same field as PICS, its primary goal is labelling which did not take off as expected and suffer from the same issue as PICS for this specific use case.
[[
obsoleting CC/PP, P3P and the PICS suite of specifications is entirely appropriate; they were good efforts, but didn't meet their goals.
]]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2017Apr/0011.html
(cc @ylafon )
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: