653 2004-04-05 20:35:04 +0000 art 10 jurisdiction issue 2004-04-26 18:04:51 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified P3P Article 10 vocabulary issues unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 lorrie rigo oldest_to_newest 1654 0 lorrie 2004-04-05 20:35:04 +0000 proposal is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2004Apr/0002.html 1671 1 lorrie 2004-04-12 20:11:30 +0000 resolved 4/7//04 1737 2 rigo 2004-04-20 13:54:51 +0000 This BNF is wrong as the Recipient has a different format for the comments. In fact it is like <jurisdiction>PCDATA</jurisdiction> that most of the recipient subelements are made. I followed that and it should have the same expression power. But this has to go back to the WG for agreement. jurisdiction= "<JURISDICTION" " service=" quoted-URI [" short-description=" quotedstring] ">" [longdescription] "</JURISDICTION>" Now it is like this "&lt;jurisdiction [required] "service=" quoted-URI &gt; *recdescr | ; legal entities in the jurisdiction "&lt;/jurisdiction&gt; | ; indicated in the service URI 1769 3 rigo 2004-04-26 14:04:51 +0000 I re-arranged all completely and added the jurisdiction element under it's own point: http://www.w3.org/P3P/2004/WD-P3P11-20040420.html#jurisdiction