Re: Discussion on Change Proposal for ISSUE-66

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>> I don't understand why we would *forbid* UAs from improving image
>>> accessibility by whatever means they can.
>>>
>>> However I do agree with the change proposal in that I would be fine
>>> with removing the current text. However I would suggest replacing it
>>> with a general statement that UAs are allowed to improve accessibility
>>> in any way it can. Even if that goes against the letter of the spec.
>>>
>>> This is similar to how I think the spec should say that UAs should be
>>> allowed to deviate from the spec for security reasons if the UA so
>>> desires.
>>>
>>
>> That's a dangerous precedent to take.
>>
>> If a UA sees the potential for security risks in any of the specs, it
>> should be working, now, to ensure the component leading to the risk is
>> removed, or altered.
>
> And we do. But many times security issues aren't discovered until a
> spec is in a spec where making quick modifications are possible.
>

Then we assume they'll do what's necessary to ensure security, without
having to have explicit permission to do so in the specification.


>> Removing the sentence doesn't say UAs aren't allowed to improve
>> accessibility -- it's just removing what amounts to an
>> overspecification.
>
> Oh? What language in the spec allows this? I interpreted the MUSTs in
> the specs as MUSTs under all conditions except when explicitly stated
> otherwise.
>
> / Jonas
>

I don't know what you're asking Jonas. But since we're in agreement on
Matt's proposal, to remove the section, it doesn't matter.

Shelley