Re: ISSUE-161: Discussion of semantics and alternatives to "!" (was: Batch closing)

On Apr 17, 2013, at 12:04 AM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> Roy,
> I entirely fail to see how the semantics of a status indicator "cannot be addressed."  Could you please explain your concern?
> Thanks,
> Jonathan

I don't have a concern.  The concern you expressed is a fear that
sites will be allowed to express some degree of non-conformance,
rather than an all-or-nothing adherence to some compliance regime
that simply does not exist.  The place to address your concern is
in that compliance regime, not the protocol.

Some people have a desire for the server to communicate when there
is a lack of conformance.  There are two solutions to that: 1) allow
them to do so in the protocol; 2) sit by and watch them do so
outside the protocol.  There is no third option of "require them
to always conform" because non-conformance is outside our scope.

Failure to provide a means for communicating "D" inside the protocol
just means that it will be expressed as either a non-standard
extension or within the privacy policy of each site.

Failure to provide a means for testing ("!") inside the protocol
just means everyone will invent their own means for pre-deployment
testing (e.g., use different field and WKR names), and then they
will have a legitimate excuse for implementing it wrong the first
few times.

The protocol can't place limits on how long or how often the
testing periods might be, nor is there any reason to believe
that sites will game an explicit indication on non-conformance.
Compliance regimes can do that, either in the form of regulations
or self-regulatory guidelines.  I am not writing either one, so
I will not be addressing your concern in TPE.



Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 08:02:48 UTC