W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2011

Re: fyi: Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Restrictions

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:39:55 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTin7EyNtXtOAd9onPN7FNYQtWJQeGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
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 Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 04:53:06 +0100, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
>> Its unfortunate that Anne chose to associate this with "license
>> enforcement" (see quote below). WOFF has explicitly avoided any suggestion
>> of "enforcement".
> My bad. All it takes to change this draft (and it really is that, we haven't
> even published this, I just put some notes up on a URL) is sending me an
> email with a suggestion of what would work instead :-)
> (Nothing really comes to mind unfortunately, otherwise this email would
> announce a change had been made.)
> Cheers,
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

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?

And as we discussed maybe soften the word "enforcement" where it
occurs in the text. Maybe "checking" instead.

Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 20:40:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:10 UTC