Re: Geopriv compromise proposal

On Jun 17, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Rigo Wenning wrote:
>>>
>>> If your assumption that content displayed via the browser (and  
>>> here it
>>> is just something not HTML, like geodata) would be attributed to the
>>> browser, liability attorneys would have really new fun ideas about
>>> browser vendor's liability.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with the legal realities, and everything to  
>> do with
>> the implied user perceptions in the interface.
>>
>>
>>> Imagine you could locate the kids on Facebook to better target them.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but this kind of fear-mongering is where I draw the line.
>>
>>
>> I join Doug in asking for a formal vote on whether we can move  
>> forward
>> with the spec as it stands today.
>>
>
> I thought we had already decided to reject the proposal. Rigo formed
> his arguments as a tweak to the Geopriv proposal and since nobody
> seemed to change their minds, I thought the existing decision applies.
> But if a formal vote is required, then let's do it.



Chairs, Matt,

Despite reaching consensus, we are still arguing about this issue.  In  
accordance with the w3c general policy, I would like to ask for an  
official vote.