[TAG] Proposal to obsolete P3P, PICS*, CC/PP*, POWDER

[plehegar]

title, URL of the document to be obsoleted

• Name: PICS* CC/PP* POWEDER*
• Specification URLs:
  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to indicate that its specifications had been superseded.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 )

[svgeesus]

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?

[svgeesus]

@swickr @ylafon could this proposal either be moved forward, or closed (the latter with some indication of why the Director disagrees with the TAG)?

[svgeesus]

Oh no! We missed celebrating the five-year anniversary of this issue, back in August! 🎂