Re: problem sentences in draft

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd
<jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote:
> In section 4:
> "The User Agent must not categorically prohibit dispatch of unknown intent
> types."
>
> The double negative means the UA must do something, but the spec does not
> say what.
> This sentence needs to be removed or changed.
> Possibly to something like:
> "The User Agent may choose to dispatch unknown intent types based on
> information not contained in this specification."

I want to say something much stronger than this, though -- I want to
require that UAs not close the action namespace. On the other hand,
there is reason to allow the UA to potentially block dispatch of
particular intent types for reasons that aren't obvious now. So I'm
trying to be careful in saying that.

I do think this is testable: create a random string, use it as the
intent action, and see if the UA dispatches on it. If it does, that is
really strong evidence that this spec requirement is met.

Suggestions of a better way to say this, or disagreements about
whether that's the right thing to say, are welcome. :-)


> By the way, the word "categorically" adds an ambiguity: the UA must not
> categorically prohibit, but is it OK for the UA to (simply) prohibit ?



> Also in section 4:
>
> " The User Agent must not allow web pages the ability to discover passively
> which services ..."
>
> What it the meaning of "passively" in this context ?
> This should be unambiguously explained IN the spec (not to me).
>
> Best regards
> JC
>
> --
> JC Dufourd
> Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
> Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
> Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
> Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
> Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 16:41:55 UTC