I belief that Bugzilla needs an new Component, for P3P The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0 (P3P1.0) Specification may be visit by using this uri: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-P3P-20001215/ It's a W3C Candidate Recommendation starting from December 15. Microsoft is working hard on this issue, Netscape/Mozilla should do this also. Protecting the users privacy is getting more and more attention, this will be very important, for a lot of us. If you like to see this option in Mozilla, simply vote for this one! Thank you, HJ.

DUP of bug 62399. See also bug 62453. Both of these bugs are easy to find using a search for open bugs that contain "P3P" in the subject line -- please do a search for bugs before filing new ones! Thanks. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 62399 ***

The reporter already commented in bug 62399 on Dec. 8th, so the duplicate is deliberate. Verified dup.

NO duplicate and NOT deliberate, but 'mid air collission' made a mess of it! Sorry for you... but hey, your only human!

*blink* *blink* Ok, now I'm lost...

This bug is for adding a P3P component to bugzilla, so it's not a dup of bug 62399, which is for implementing P3P. (HJ, it would have been helpful if you had provided a summary for this bug that made that clear.)

Sending to new component for keyword/component changes to bugzilla.mozilla.org.

Cc mstoltz and ian, since they know more about P3P than I do. Would it be useful to have a bugzilla component for P3P?

Do we have any P3P bugs? Heck, do we have any P3P code to have bugs in?

When we have code, we will probably have bugs. Until we have bugs there is no need for a Component. WontFix. Please reopen when if/when we have sufficient P3P code that tracking a group of bugs in that code becomes necessary.

verified won't fix.

And what if someone is willing to implement P3P support for Mozilla?

H-J, if someone contributes code and bugs are filed against that code then I will consider creating a component for those bugs. I'm not about to start creating components for every RFE filed. Code first, then component :)

IBM has contributed P3P code. I'm working on integrating it. When it's checked in, a Bugzilla component may be a good thing.

reopening. cool.

I filed this REF only after reading Thomas Lendacky's comment of 2000-12-11. And as far as I know is Thomas working for IBM, right?

Confirming and adding "waiting for p3p code to be added to the browser" to the status whiteboard.

the code is in /extensions/p3p/ default owner should probably be Tom Lendacky ( toml@us.ibm.com ) can someone volunteer to be the QA contact? -- note that we're unlikely to create the component w/o additional bugs but it's still good to know whom to give the bugs in the interim.

timeless: All P3P related bugs should be directed my way.

QA > junruh@netscape.com. Asa, please add the P3P component.

I toyed with the idea of having the qa for a new componnet be the qa of the bug about it but decided that it was not worth it, please leave me as qa for my component, thank you. before anyone creates a component, we need to have a description, could someone please suggest such an entity?

Before we have a component we need to have bugs. Are there a sufficiently large set of bugs to warrant adding a new component to the already really long list?

Asa: There aren't many bugs on P3P as of today, however, that could change soon once, P3P gets enabled, and people start using it.

*** Bug 136926 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Wontfix. There is now a Browser:P3P component in Bugscape.

Verified.

*** Bug 211411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Reopening, bugscape is not enough, as p3p is on in mozilla now. And there are bugs on p3p, search in the component XML for p3p. That is not obvious, as I said in bug 211411. I'd favour a "Privacy: P3P" over a mere "P3P" for bugzilla, that is a bit more self explanatory, as p3p is exposed in the privacy panel of page info, for example.

*** Bug 239609 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

I'm told we have only about 15 bugs on P3P, and are considering removing support for this pointless technology altogether, so... \/\/hatever...