- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:49:14 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 26 May 2009 21:26:14 +0200, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote: > When spiders, search engines, proxies, and other > web intermediaries got added to the web architecture, > the header "User-Agent" remained, even when some of > those agents are not operating directly in service > of a human end user. And Anne replied: > I have the feeling the term "user agent" remained as well. > At least within the W3C. So I'm not sure this distinction > makes sense here. If the only kind of HTML interpreter that matters here is a HTML User Agent, then the distinction would make sense here. However, there has been strong push back that the specification being reviewed should be applicable to all kinds of HTML interpreters, and not just HTML User Agents. There are likely important distinctions between the operational requirements of HTML interpreting agents being run by a user in order to access the information in the HTML page (and thus a HTML User Agent) vs. those being run as a service or for some other purpose (e.g., search engine spiders, for example). The operational requirements would include the requirements for security or privacy: it might be reasonable to ask that a user agent present the user with a security dialog asking the user's intent or warning the user, but unreasonable to ask that someone (a person) be presented with that dialog if the HTML interpeting agent is a service scanning the Internet or even a particular site. The operational requirements of different kinds of HTML interpreting agents are sufficiently different that it is important to distinguish between them when reading and reviewing the text, in order to validate that the specification in question simultaneously meets the operational requirements. If W3C issues a technical specification of the HTML language, it would be expected that the language definition would be useful by a wide category of HTML creation and interpreting agents, not just a specification of HTML User Agents. The document purports to address a wide variety of HTML interpreting contexts, and so I think it is useful to keep in mind, and distinguish between, the categories of interpreting agents while reviewing the specification. Using language -- different terms -- in mind while doing that review -- is one way of making the distinction and keeping it in mind. It does seem that the largest bulk of review is being done by implementors of HTML User Agents. But being clear that "HTML interpreter" is a broader category than "HTML User Agent" makes sense. Sincerely, Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 15:50:04 UTC