W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-01.txt

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:47:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjEOBK+hStsedp4g=ixuMErL_Q6uAH_bQtskFU+PKUQXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
A HTTP server can always return content with a status code but it will
only display in the browser if it is HTML or the like.

Formalizing some means of providing a link would be useful but
probably something for HTML rather than HTTP?

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 07:25 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
>> Since MNot has put this on the agenda, I thought I should revise one more
>> time.  There?s one big change and a bunch of little ones.
>> Big: I went and talked to some subject-matter experts at Google who are
>> paid to think about this sort of policy stuff, and some others who might
>> have to implement it.  I got strong advice that the draft should not talk
>> about ?legal restrictions? because this might carry an implication that the
>> party emitting the 451 acknowledges that this is in fact a ?restriction?.
>>  In fact, many parties get legal demands that they think might well be
>> bogus but choose not to go to court for reasons of policy or cost; so
>> they?d like to avoid implying that they acknowledge a ?restriction?.  I was
>> advised that it was perfectly OK to report that legal ?demands? had been
>> made, and eventually became convinced that this was more accurate. The
>> Republican Guards call up and demand that you take down some links, and you
>> think they might be full of crap, but they?re the Guards, so you can
>> accurately report that the *demand* was made.
> What about an additional recommendation that, where permitted, servers
> should include a link to more information?
> A link could provide information about the specific demand or the
> general legal context. With Chilling Effects, I'm thinking, from the
> other direction, about better standardizing the description and posting
> of these demands, so it could be interesting to encourage pointers.
> --Wendy
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.863.0613
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 16:48:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:04 UTC