- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:26:53 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
On Thursday 07 June 2012 13:08:08 Tamir Israel wrote: > I think this raises a very valid point, which extends well beyond > the IE default scenario. Allowing any point in the chain to > second guess signals that are facially valid, but assert > compliance. This could be problematic, no? Only if the decision remains silent and uncommunicated. If I second guess something and tell the other side NACK, there is nothing misleading to it. The problem is the semantically loaded use of "compliance" where it means "privacy enhancing" instead of "implements all the SHOULDS and MUSTS of the Specification". Rigo
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 19:27:21 UTC