- From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:22:29 -0400
- To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- CC: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Walter, You are a lawyer, yes? I have not had the opportunity to try to interpret the definitions of RFC2119 in a legal context. Can you explain how you have counseled clients when implementing a SHOULD provision of a standard where there is legal liability attached? Do have any examples of bases under which you have felt comfortable counseling a client that they can ignore a SHOULD requirement? Best, David On 10/19/12 4:08 AM, Walter van Holst wrote: > On 10/19/12 12:47 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> That is why, when Berin cautioned that a group of regulators or >> legislators or a judicial process would interpret these words >> more forcefully, our response was that they are INTENDED to be >> interpreted forcefully -- they are requirements of the protocol. >> That is why we have a normative reference to RFC2119. > I agree wholeheartedly and also have to confess I was rather puzzled by > the ease with which terminology that has been around for a long time and > formalised in 1997 in a period in which a great deal of internet > standards came to fruition all of a sudden was dismissed as too vague. > > Regards, > > Walter > >
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 14:23:04 UTC