- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:00:48 +0200
- To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:39:55 +0200, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: > Since the restrictions are assumed voluntarily by the user-agent > because of its interest in complying with the desires of content > publishers, whether as a matter of goodwill, contract, or legislation, > "restriction" is not a good word to use, since it sounds like > something the publisher is empowered to do. How about a title > involving "compliance" or "exclusion"? > > Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Compliance Assistance > Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Policy Compliance > Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Exclusion > Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Exclusion Protocol [thanks to ml@cc > for this one] > > or something along those lines? I went for "Exclusion". > And as we discussed maybe soften the word "enforcement" where it > occurs in the text. Maybe "checking" instead. Done, also avoided using "restrictions" in the text. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/from-origin/raw-file/tip/Overview.html For a unified diff see: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/from-origin/rev/27b62874e8e0 Thanks for your suggestions! -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 15:01:35 UTC