W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2009

[Bug 6774] <mark> element: restrict insertion by other servers

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:36:17 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MDWan-00080K-VW@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6774


Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|enhancement                 |major




--- Comment #6 from Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com>  2009-06-08 04:36:17 ---
We should add the risks of libel, defamation of character, interference with an
advantageous business relationships, and other legal liabilities arising
because of third-party content mistakenly attributed to the website owner, who
may not have any knowledge of what is appearing in a user's browser.

This could offend and lose visitors; it could also lead to a lawsuit. Both
would be misdirected, but the website owner might have to prove to a court that
they didn't have the content complained of. Since the owner can't see the
user's browser and since the browser's additions will likely be intermittent or
on irregular rotation, the website owner may be reduced to speculating on where
the content appeared, a court may not buy speculation, and the court may order
the website owner to come in to testify as to what content appeared on certain
days. The plaintiff will swear it was there and the defendant will deny it. I,
as a website owner, don't want to be in the defendant's chair.

For you to sue whomever ran the third-party message requires your figuring out
who ran it, and legally Microsoft may be off the hook if it didn't go through
them.

Even without a lawsuit, you may have to explain your way out of the
consequences of something you never saw and can't find. Your general disclaimer
may not be enough to avoid losing some of your visitors or losing a lawsuit for
monetary damages.

Since <span> can do the legitimate functions of <mark>, <mark> should be
dropped or controlled with meta elements as proposed. I suggest dropping as the
simpler solution.

Thanks.

-- 
Nick


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 04:36:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 8 June 2009 04:36:25 GMT