W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2013

Re: ACTION-359: Add proposal for ISSUE-161 to allow an indicator of non-compliance within the tracking status value for testing and deployment

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:23:11 +0100
To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <j245h8dqio7hrper4f1ou88rsrgqqljk6c@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* David Wainberg wrote:
>Following up from last week's discussion. What's the rationale for the 
>additional requirements? If the implementation is non-compliant, 
>incomplete, testing, whatever, then why not let that be the case without 
>additional requirements? Also, doesn't it create a circular problem with 
>trying to indicate non-compliance in a compliant way? Especially if the 
>non-compliance includes not providing those elements?

>Moreover, can we change the name to something like "non-standard" rather 
>than "non-compliant," since if they are providing this flag according to 
>the spec then they are in fact compliant with the spec.

I agree that it needs a different name ("dormant" or "status-only" might
be better than "non-standard" though). Would that address your questions
regarding "non-compliance" above, or would they apply regardless of the
name?
-- 
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 Wednesday, 6 February 2013 17:23:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:04 UTC