- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:54:59 +0100
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: Greg Bolsinga <bolsinga@apple.com>, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote: > On 27 May 2009, at 16:15, Andrei Popescu wrote: >> >> I propose we add a subsection to the "Privacy > >> considerations for >> implementors of the Geolocation API" section: >> >> //------------------ >> Optional implementation considerations > > That makes the guidance sound more feeble than it actually is. "Additional > implementation considerations" would be fine; also, it's already clear that > the section is non-normative. Putting "optional" here means overdoing it a > bit. > Ok, "Additional implementation considerations" is fine with me. >> This section is non-normative. >> >> <your suggested wording here> >> //------------------ >> >>>> Implementors should consider the risk of users granting authorization >>>> inadvertently, and provide mechanisms to limit users' exposure to >>>> privacy >>>> risks due to such errors. Such mechanisms include: >>> >> >> For clarity, I would propose avoiding RFC2119 keywords in this >> section. We could instead say: > > I'm not particularly happy with that step, in particular since the section > is already clearly labelled as non-normative, and since the phrase in > question puts a burden on implementors -- instead of listing a requirement > that implementations should conform to. > Yes but it may not be that clear that the RFC2119 verbs have a different meaning here. I think we should just not use them to avoid any confusion. Thanks, Andrei
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 14:55:39 UTC