W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2014

Re: ISSUE-153 Consensus

From: Sid Stamm <sid@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:19:56 -0800
Message-ID: <52E82D0C.6020702@mozilla.com>
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, "Jack L. Hobaugh Jr" <jack@networkadvertising.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>


On 01/28/2014 01:50 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:
> The alternative proposal was the existing text.  It was understanding
> from the January 15th call [1] that at least Sid Stamm and Walter van
> Holst preferred the existing text, and did not want to make the
> quasi-legal assertion that user agents bear joint responsibility for the
> behavior of add-ons. 

Mainly I don't understand why we should add the additional text. Shane
and I mostly converged in IRC by adding "to the extent possible", which
I can probably live with (because that is what Mozilla does with add-ons
regardless of what this spec says), but I'm still not convinced we
should put this language in the protocol spec.

>From the minutes[1]:
"""
<npdoty> "to the extent possible" is a request on organizations like
Mozilla, not a requirement on a piece of software, right?
<sidstamm> npdoty, sounds like it, which means maybe it shouldn't be in
the TPE
"""

It seems to me this is compliance language and not about the protocol,
which is why I don't think it should be in the protocol spec.

-Sid

[1] http://www.w3.org/2014/01/15-dnt-minutes
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 22:20:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:41:42 UTC