Very interesting point, David. Thanks. On Feb 23, 2012, at 4:20 PM, David Singer wrote: > Every now and again we come up with this discussion, and we agree we're not protecting against 'bad actors' (those who claim compliance but simply don't comply). So then, what is the protection? > > I believe that the restraints apply to those who wish to claim compliance 'with a straight face' yet also wish to 'stretch the envelope'. I think that these are companies who will use *all* the latitude permitted, yet (correctly) still claim compliance. > > Since these are the companies that will 'play right up to the fence', it is for these companies that deciding where the fence is, is important. (And doubly important to make sure that there aren't gaps in the fence, as then they can keep going in that direction indefinitely and never encounter a fence.) > > This happens all the time in standards; you imagine what people could do with the format or protocol or whatever, and ask whether that's OK, and if a limit needs applying, you write it in. > > > I'm not sure what nifty short-hand to use for these; 'bad actors' doesn't cut it. 'Envelope-stretchers' is too much of a mouthful. > > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. > ---------- John M. Simpson Consumer Advocate Consumer Watchdog 1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA,90405 Tel: 310-392-7041 Cell: 310-292-1902 www.ConsumerWatchdog.org john@consumerwatchdog.org
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 18:33:47 UTC