- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:05:42 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:51 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > But that is not the right criterion. Hostile receivers are > irrelevant, as anything can be misinterpreted if that is one's intent. > The architecture only needs to facilitate communication among > *cooperating* parties I *was* talking about this case. For example, if a proposed agreement says "there is no agreement" then the behavior of parties cooperating under that proposal is unconstrained and any use of unconstrained behavior is potentially hostile, even if it is cooperating with the proposed agreement. Under "does not imply" there is (as stated) no agreement unless there is a description link. Then two parties both cooperating with the proposal could easily fail to successfully communicate with one another, e.g. if one assumed httpRange-14 and the other assumed "read the content" or "primary topic". To get coordination there must be *some* agreement, and for the sake of transparency it's best if the agreement is written down. Jonathan
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 15:06:18 UTC