W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > August 2009

[Bug 6774] <mark> element: restrict insertion by other servers

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:35:07 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MbFr1-0003l5-FH@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6774





--- Comment #19 from Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com>  2009-08-12 15:35:07 ---
Both are solvable.

> I think it's clear that "the server" here is the server serving the page.

> . . . I think the requested fix . . .
> would in fact lead to readers wondering if another server could have been meant
> if the clause wasn't present (as it isn't in many other cases in the spec).

It should be clear not only in this thread, but in the standard itself. It
arguably is by implication, but that gets tricky. One solution is a general
definition in a glossary, such as: "Server means the page owner's server unless
the context clearly indicates otherwise."

>> allow per-page opt-in by the page author via a meta tag to permit anyone else
>> to add mark tags anywhere else. Without an opt-in on a page, other servers thus
>> could not legally add the markup to that page.

> Other pages already can't add any markup to the page. Servers can't just
> arbitrarily affect each other.

This was never about any other server going into the page owner's server. That
was noted long ago. This was about marking up the page as it travels to the
user but without the user knowing that changes due to the markup were not in
the original. Most users won't know. Thus, the bar.

However, a page owner may want to permit Microsoft or anyone else to add
Activities or other effects of whatever flavor. A per-page opt-in provision
would allow that. I don't think many designers would exercise it but it would
settle any controversy that Microsoft should be allowed to improve our websites
without telling us by providing page owners with a tool to permit it. If an
opt-in method should allow more specificity about what is opted into, that can
be developed easily enough now or later, but a simple and comprehensive opt-in
is a good starting point. It would serve as legal permission only. It would not
cause anything technologically. Implementation would be up to the user agent.
What would come from  the page owner is permission for the UA to implement, as
it should, or there'd be no right for the UA to implement the unwanted mark, in
the legal sense that there is a right or duty to implement b, em, strong, abbr,
and other elements.

I'm open to further ideas without reopening now. Most major website owners will
want their sites delivered as sent (with the usual exceptions for, e.g., the
user taking responsibility for making changes or for disability-responsive
access), so, if there are any better solutions, they're of interest.

Thanks.

-- 
Nick


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:35:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:00:58 UTC