W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Allowed uses of protocol data in first N weeks (ACTION-190)

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 10:05:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8fecw9zSU_AiYv87yA1gB-XMUDhWgJCYf3MkVv2wR-o4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I will admit that this is really not my concern at this point. I think
there's a lot of questions around the substantive issues ("what should be
allowed / what should not be allowed"). If we can get past those
substantive issues then I'm fine with people re-wording it however they
like to make it fit into an overall better flow / structure.

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Ian Fette wrote:
> >The entire spec is already structured around having general principles and
> >exceptions to these principles (in the form of permitted uses and
> >user-granted exceptions). I really don't find this to be that different,
> >but I don't care. I was asked to draft text, I'm certainly open to
> >suggestions / changes / friendly amendments. I will say though that I
> don't
> >share your view of this being problematic from a 2119 perspective.
>
> It's not really a view, RFC 2119 is quite explicit that "Imperatives of
> the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly." In
> particular that means one should not use them when it is not necessary;
> it is not necessary to use them to reflect on or re-state requirements;
> that is how your proposal uses them, as far as I can tell, and that is
> not okay, by the quoted requirement.
>
> As for the structuring, the Compliance document is full of references
> like "unless it falls under an exemption", "this is except as allowed
> by permitted uses stated elsewhere in this specification", and so on.
> Precisely to avoid the impression that some requirement is an absolute,
> only to find it overridden elsewhere in the document.
>
> I might be able to make some suggestions how to rephrase the proposal,
> but I would need confirmation that my understanding, as I explained it,
> is correct.
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 17:05:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC