- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:21:39 -0800
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Please, no! These are terms found in any dictionary. On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:09 AM, David Singer wrote: > Ah, so now we have 3 possibilities: > > 1) Rigo, Shane and I: > > exemption -- the rule/specification as a whole doesn't generally apply to you actually, it doesn't apply for some specific standard reason (the exemption) > exception -- the specification applies, but you can claim some limited carve-outs (exceptions) it does apply, but someone made an exception for you. > (Shane: 1st parties are generally exempt; other carve-outs define more limited exceptions) > > 2) Jonathan, as I understand it: > > exemption -- the user *grants* exemptions > exception -- the site/service may *claim* a (limited) exception That is the exact opposite of what both mean. > 3) Vincent, as I understand it, has it exactly the other way: > > exemption -- an authorized use of data collected, a carve-out > exception -- a user grants exceptions Yep, that's right. > we await more possibilities (specially from Aleecia !)... While I am amused that the native english speakers seem to have more problem with this than the others, we can generally agree that this is an editorial issue (it doesn't matter which word we use since both result in a negative) and we can either choose to use exception everywhere or I can be tasked with making the language correct before publication. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 19:21:59 UTC