On Apr 17, 2013, at 15:04 , Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> wrote: > Roy, > > I entirely fail to see how the semantics of a status indicator "cannot be addressed." Could you please explain your concern? I think the draft clearly expresses the semantics, as Roy says. The draft cannot (and does not) address legal or regulatory concerns. In any case, it's hard to see what such concerns there may be around an explicit statement that compliance is explicitly NOT claimed by the site, which is what ! means. Can you give me a pointer to the concern you believe is still outstanding (or re-send it)? Thanks > > Thanks, > Jonathan > > On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >>> On 12/04/2013 17:03, David Wainberg wrote: >>>> Hi Matthias, >>>> >>>> On 161, the "!" signal, while we do seem to have consensus on the signal, I do not believe we have reached consensus on the precise meaning or the language describing it in the spec. Therefore, the issue should remain open. >>>> >>>> -David >> >> I believe that David's concerns have been fully addressed in the >> editors' draft. Jonathan's have not because they cannot be >> addressed in a protocol (only in some legal or regulatory framework >> which is not our concern). >> >> ....Roy > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 07:40:18 UTC