RE: ISSUE-239: Link to compliance document

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1 to Walter and Shane. The user must be able to find out how their preference is being honoured,  so a MUST, unless there is a compliance regime inferred by local law  (it is always a backstop anyway but that should be reiterated in non-normative text). I still think machine parsing is needed for UAs and scanners, i.e. a shortcode or a restricted set of well-known named Urls.

Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl]
> Sent: 16 December 2013 18:08
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-239: Link to compliance document
> 
> On 16/12/2013 15:23, mts-std@schunter.org wrote:
> 
> > If nobody makes a case for / against including this link, I suggest to
> > continue with the Status quo and reject Roy's proposed edit and not
> > include a link.
> 
> It may possibly be such a no-brainer that we accept at least the gist of
> Roy's proposed edit that we haven't really discussed it so far. If
> anything, since we are about control and transparency for the user, I
> would be in favour of strengthening the MAY into a MUST. Because it
> should be clear what compliance spec a site is following if it claims
> any form of compliance at all. It also meshes better with the way the
> web works than a specific compliance spec identifier.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  Walter
> 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.1.107.3564 - http://www.gpg4o.de/
Charset: utf-8

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSr1PfAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JwKsIAMsU13W0r67ctv/cwNu5Mod2
1G28KI4PUnWCEIOc2ILlN9MYiAk8iwMamY68/IY8aqr31cnZynT+//748FCqZL8+
A97iGEPurhhs23Qh9rCwgxwlHV/pJ2uRBbt7CRAxIQUxH7VtFgQ5vPhQRYGEjr/C
08jeh8J5k44/AMLrX5sqzP1aG/gm3HUFOAP2tl5RZ2bHJBi7pp4+v/a4kPnrYMji
PjqlILFh9gHoxel2gLpMTi+CQSZmoBsdRQhu/gEqfQKbAzxnxIrOd/k588KNgjnk
c+DiJf+751HdSr58/ViBBVcZ50lSr7QUnc0y7ZbYnpnPjT9nWQs1HetUYqgo2Nc=
=nkw/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 19:26:53 UTC