W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2013

RE: Disclaimer for Authoritative Metadata (ACTION-793)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:58:55 -0700
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E885D9556@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
I don't think "requirements ... not respected ..." really captures the situation sufficiently to be helpful -- you might as well withdraw the finding since it now
would provide no guidance at all. 
First, the document only mentions "requirement" twice:
      " it is better to design Web systems that are capable of fulfilling more stringent requirements"
      and in the reference to RFC 2119 MUST MAY SHOULD language definition.

Of those, a "SHOULD" is strong advice but not a requirement, so focusing on MUST, there are only a few:
"An agent MUST NOT ignore or override authoritative metadata without the consent of the party employing the agent."
"Specifications MUST NOT work against the Web architecture by requiring or suggesting that a recipient override authoritative metadata without user consent."

but in the end, "user consent" adds:
"Likewise, consent may be implied by the nature or type of interaction being performed by the agent".

In fact, there are no current W3C or IETF specifications that "work against" the "Web architecture" in this way. The one WHATWG specification on sniffing does not REQUIRE sniffing (it's an option). It does suggest that a recipient override authoritative metadata, but the suggestion could change to make "running a modern browser in non-debug settings" a type of interaction that implies user consent to sniffing.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: annevankesteren@gmail.com [mailto:annevankesteren@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 3:49 AM
> To: www-tag.w3.org
> Subject: Disclaimer for Authoritative Metadata (ACTION-793)
> 
> To complete my action I created
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20130405.html which is
> otherwise identical to
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412.html except for
> the added note at the top (and the changed status section and style
> sheet to account for it being a draft).
> 
> The note reads: "The requirements of this finding with respect to the
> HTTP Content-Type header are not respected by user agents and
> specifications. The TAG may at a future point issue a revised finding
> that takes these developments into account."
> 
> Which I think clearly indicates that this finding with respect to HTTP
> Content-Type is under dispute within the wider community.
> 
> 
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/


Received on Friday, 5 April 2013 16:00:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 April 2013 16:00:13 UTC