Please implement 100% support for the W3C's Platform for Privacy Preferences
(P3P) Project. (http://www.w3.org/P3P/)
See also: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/15316.html
Yes yes and yes please do that!
This DEFINETLY would be cool and would go along perfectly with the cookie
manager, the ability to only accept original images/cookies, and the wallet.
Once moz has all of these it would be the de facto security/privecy browser.
Agreed. This is something I've been considering for awhile, and it is definitely
on my priority list to implement some P3P support. First, I'd like a good
general mechanism for storing site-specific prefs, like the cookie manager does.
I'll see if I can leverage existing code for this, or rewrite it more generally.
If somebody else wants to work on P3P support before I get to it, please do;
I'll accept patches in this area.
I'm getting ready to contribute P3P support as soon as I get past all the
open source submission stuff I'm supposed to get through. Should be a few days
from now hopefully. The support is current to the September 15, 2000 version of
the spec. I'll have more to say once it's available to the community.
Can you post your changes as a patch here? That way I can review them and get
them approved, and hopefully start integrating it with other privacy code.
Mitchell: see bug 7380, backend support for all page prefs on a URL by URL basis.
*** Bug 63096 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
First of all, bug 63096 is not a duplicate of this bug.
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.
Created attachment 22684 [details]
Notes on how to build with P3P support
Created attachment 22685 [details]
P3P Patch 1 - Diffs (Zipped)
Created attachment 22686 [details]
P3P Patch 2 - New Files (Zipped)
I've just posted Tom Lendacky of IBM's patches for P3P support, with a textfile
that explains how to merge them. This code has a problem which is documented in
bug 64668. If anyone wants to work on integrating this stuff before I get to it,
please go ahead.
Created attachment 25076 [details]
Update to nsP3PUI to support weak references for adding a WebProgressListner
Updated nsP3PUI to support a weak reference when adding it as a
Created attachment 26016 [details]
Updates for change to nsIChannel and nsILoadGroup (includes previous updates)
I thought of a way to temporarily work around bug 64668. It requires the
1. Copy the P3P Base Dataschema (p3p\resources\content\P3PBaseDataSchema.xml) to
a local HTTP server.
2. Modify p3p\src\nsP3PDataSchema.cpp::PostInit to point to the local HTTP
server copy: In the "if (aURISpec.EqualsWithConversion( P3P_BASE_DATASCHEMA ))"
block, set mReadURISpec and mcsReadURISpec to the URL where the base dataschema
file was copied to, leave mUseDOMParser as false, and return NS_OK right after.
This should work. However when I tested it I kept getting random failures in
the parsing of the XML file saying that the file is not well formed. These
failures happen at different spots in the file. Loading it directly into the
browser window sometimes worked and sometimes failed. Loading the XML file with
IE was always successful. So it looks like there is a parsing bug in Mozilla.
Taking bug from Mitch.
Created attachment 28350 [details]
Updates for changes to nsIGenericFactory and nsCString (all previous updates included)
What needs to be done to get to December 2000 specification.
- policy refrence file referenced by a LINK tag can specify policies other than
the URI prefix as the policy reference file itself.
- P3P parser should taught about TEST element and NON-IDENTIFIABLE element.
- import user preferences using a documented mechanism ( need APPEL support ).
- Base Data Schema should be updated to comply with December 2000 spec.
- support COOKIE-INCLUDE and COOKIE-EXCLUDE.
- support Compact Policies.
- support POLICIES element within policy.
- support multiple languages.
- export user preferences.
Tom, could you please take a look at my previous comment and let me know if I
missed something? Thanks
Supporting the POLICIES element is a MUST. Additionally, there are some XML
tags and attributes that had a spelling change and these MUST be corrected to
match the new spelling.
Other than that your list looks good.
Created attachment 29499 [details] [diff] [review]
[patch] remove unneeded strres.js, prefutilities.js from pref-P3P(cust).xul
I've attached some changes needed after I cvs removed pref-utilities.js
recently. It seems to me these xul files need to be updated for the recent XUL
tag name changes, cc'ing blake who can give some pointers on that. Also, since
this is an extension, shouldn't this be going into its own jar file in its own
subdirectories (e.g. comm/content/p3p/, en-US/locale/en-US/p3p/)?
The xul syntax changes are outlined in my recent 'XUL SYNTAX' thread to
news.public.mozilla.xpfe. Let me know if you need additional help in making the
Jag: You're correct. jar.mn, I think, should be updated to direct P3P related
stuff to its own directory.
And with it the xul files referencing p3p xul/dtd/js files.
When I created my own jar file for the cookie and wallet stuff, super-review
complained saying that we shouldn't be creating additional jar files and should
put this into the existing comm.jar and en-US.jar files. He said the jar files
are only a packaging issue so there's nothing wrong with putting things from the
extensions directory into the common jar files. Go figure.
I very much prefer for wallet and all other extensions to get there own jars.
If we can't handle localization of individual components then we have a serious
p3p needs its own jars. I for one do not want to download a single bit of p3p
In a chrome .jar file any subdirectory with its own contents.rdf could be
mechanically moved from .jar to .jar with simple build (and install script)
changes to reference the new location. There's no conflict between creating a
separate chrome structure for some feature and for now putting it in one of the
existing chrome .jars for simplicity.
At the very least make the P3P chrome movable in this way, and then people can
fight out the packaging issues elsewhere.
Created attachment 29594 [details]
Updated (non-build related) patches for P3P
Created attachment 29594 [details] for the problem reported in 74495
(http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74495). The problem could be
related to the validity of the patches since they were created months ago.
Created attachment 29615 [details] [diff] [review]
Mac build changes
I am trying to make the Mac project files. p3pIDL.mcp seems to be ok, but the
normal p3p.mcp will not compile - cannot file header files like nsCOM.h. I have
no idea why, the include paths seem to be OK. Also, I am not sure what extra
libs needs to be included in the project (besides the .cpp files in the p3p
dir). Also I am not sure what needs to be done with the resource files. So some
help would be needed here.
I attached the diff (could not get unified diff to work) to make the Mac build
script changes. These changes would make p3p not be built by default, as it
should be to begin with.
Just a comment on the packaging issue :-
packaging is completely independent of the underlying code. We collect all the
packages that we ship with by default in our distribution together into the
comm.jar file, this includes chrome that CAN NOT be deselected during the
install process, while chrome that can receives its own jars (mailnews,
chatzilla, etc). There is ZERO POINT creating new jar files for chrome that
will always be present in our distribution, and it adds to the file clutter
that we lay down on disk. This does not stop other distributions from
repackaging as they see fit, should they choose to offer installation options
or remove a feature completely, however it is appropriate for our distribution
to try and use as few jar files as possible, rather than balkanizing the front
end into hundreds of jar files for every add-on.
Another reason for creating .jars would be to save startup time for chrome that
isn't used often since the open-jar time spent is directly proportional to the
number of files in each archive.
Of course the big losers on that front are the skin and locale jars which
contain everything whether used or not. I'm not recommending
further balkanization of the chrome .jars at this point, but it might be
interesting to measure what time could be saved by being smarter.
Created attachment 30302 [details]
Update for nsIChannel interface change (note: old tree structure)
Created attachment 31786 [details] [diff] [review]
Source changes to build on Mac
Created attachment 31787 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch to the Mac build system
Created attachment 31788 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch to chrome for xul syntax changes
Created attachment 31789 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch to source outside mozilla/extensions/p3p
I've attached the necessary source changes to build P3P support on Mac.
Most of it is changing #include <blah.h> to #include "blah.h". Angle
brackets are used to indicate system headers on Mac. Also some minor
changes to handle PRTime correctly. I've also attached a patch to the Mac
build system so that it has a p3p build option. The third patch I just
attached contains the changes for the new XUL syntax, someone needs
to check these and the fourth patch groups most of the previously
attached patches to source outside of mozilla/extensions/p3p (in
text/plain, not zipped *ugh*). With this, I can use P3P somewhat in Mozilla,
though I haven't found a site for which it really works (seems related to the
version of the spec it supports). Also, the privacy icon doesn't display most
of the time, because some of the gifs that are in the cvs are broken and
customizing the settings in the prefs doesn't work either.
Created attachment 31832 [details] [diff] [review]
Changes to the preference JS file to match XUL changes
Sorry, you can ignore attachment 31832 [details] [diff] [review] since this is already in attachment
31788 [details] [diff] [review]... i just missed it when I was going through them.
Peter: Here is the list of P3P enabled sites.
r=harishd for patch id 31786.
Attachment 31786 [details] [diff] (Source changes to build on Mac) and 31787 (Patch to the Mac
build system) have been checked in. This brings Mac at the same level of the
other platforms with regards to the p3p code.
yey! Good job Peter et al.
Need to find Mozilla QA to cover the test plan and test case execution for this
feature. Asa - can you help coordinate?
Created attachment 35521 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch to make P3P compile against recent http changes [ bug 80351 ]
Created attachment 35635 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch to fix P3P build problems related to http & xpcdom changes.
Created attachment 35636 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1.1 to fix P3P build problems caused by recent http & xpcdom changes.
Harish, where are we on this?
Will http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6828424.html?tag=tp_pr change anyone's
mind on hurrying to get this in?
I'm still opposed to this. Microsoft's actions appear to be anticompetitive and
are probably just as illegal as some of their previous actions. That should not
be the reason for something to be added to mozilla's tree.
Probably done for anticompetitive reasons, but I don't see how supporting a
standard is really anticompetitive.
Anyways, what do you mean "still" opposed to this? I only saw one complaint
from you here and it was directed at the way this was getting checked in. Is
that what you're against, or are you against adding P3P in general?
Is Hotmail a passport service? Does the Cnet article mean that Microsoft will
require IE 6 (or another P3P browser) to access hotmail?
There may be a few Mozilla/Netscape users out there that would be upset if they
had to start using IE 6 for hotmail. Suddenly this bug could take on a whole
*** Bug 80351 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
if its going to land witch side of mozilla 1.0 is it going to come?
harish can you post a status update?
At the moment it looks like this is post 1.0. What we will do instead is land
support for P3P compact policies (see bug 104894).
chofmann: As heikki mentioned this is post m1.0
Full support: Future. Will file new bugs for work under way.
nsbeta1-, see bug 124503 and bug 104894 to see what is planned in the short term.
Maybe a more thorough approach would be beneficial? P3P is all fine and dandy,
but it leaves issues to address.
"It is interesting to note that these more privacy-oriented cookie controls,
although not at all complex as a technology, are not available in the browsers
themselves. Had they been included in the primary Web browsers and been in wide
use over the last five years, the Net would be different to what it is today in
terms of personal privacy. We have to conclude that the developers of browsers
made a conscious decision not to include privacy-oriented cookie controls
because it might interfere with the economic model of many Web sites, including
relates solely to the immediate Web page that is visited. This means that P3P
does not include the gathering of data through banner ad cookies and thus
ignores the vast majority of privacy invasions on the Web."
"We have to conclude that the developers of browsers made a conscious decision
not to include privacy-oriented cookie controls[...]"
What are we to make of the fact that even NS4.x had "no cookies from secondary
servers" as a pref (though not pref-panel) option more than 5 years ago, then?
As the co-developer of a GPL'ed CMS / Web publication system (named SPIP), I
would like to know how our individual / non-profit users (i.e. webmasters) are
expected to be able to fill a bunch of complex administrative XML stuff if they
want our authentication cookies to work for them. P3P is aggressively
discriminative against non-corporate webmasters. Right now, if a MSIE 6 user
tells us his browser refuses the cookies, we suggest he jumps to Mozilla. If
Mozilla implements P3P by default, then the only thing we can tell them is to
set a low privacy level in their browser. A good way to promote privacy, isn't it ?
As the developer of a GPL'd CMS (Berylium) I don't think P3P is such a big
hurdle. I think the biggest problem might be lack of examples-- once you see a
few other implementations, it's not so difficult to create your own.
The trick with a CMS is to provide a default policy that will at least get your
cookies accepted, and then allow/encourage site owners to create more
(CP="") is not so difficult.
taking P3P bugs
per discussion with mvl and dwitte, moving bugs in our p3p impl to
email@example.com and adding helpwanted keyword
p3p has been permanently cvs removed, marking wontfix.