W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Enforcement of specifications

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0610210932560.22416-100000@egate.xpasc.com>

I think for a claim to be considered false advertising, the claim
would have to be counter to a stronger specification mechanism than
the IETF. The IETF is an effective way to cooperate an produce working
standards, but those standards issued under the auspices of the IETF
have minimal legal standing. Enforcing the HTTP specification using
the courts would first require the standing of the standard.

Imagine trying to convince a court that one offender who didn't seem
to have a feature required by the standard should be punished should
be punished for false advertising when there are many other examples
of non-conformant implementations. A waste of time better spent
improving the clarity and correctness of a revised specification.
Also a real large potential downside for the computer industry and
a real windfall for lawyers.

Shame is the only realistic enforcement mechanism.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Etan Wexler wrote:

> Paul Leach wrote to the mailing list of the former, and perhaps now
> nascent, HTTP Working Group:
> > The only "enforcement" mechanism is that vendors can't morally
> > claim conformance unless they obey.
> False advertising is illegal in some jurisdictions, so the matter is a
> matter of law and not only of morality. A matter of law is susceptible
> to action in the courts. Authorities of the state typically enforce the
> decisions of the courts. Therefore, given a certain amount of effort and
> talent, concerned parties can enlist the state as their enforcement
> mechanism.
Received on Saturday, 21 October 2006 16:42:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:40 UTC