- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:23:11 +0100
- To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
* David Wainberg wrote:
>Following up from last week's discussion. What's the rationale for the
>additional requirements? If the implementation is non-compliant,
>incomplete, testing, whatever, then why not let that be the case without
>additional requirements? Also, doesn't it create a circular problem with
>trying to indicate non-compliance in a compliant way? Especially if the
>non-compliance includes not providing those elements?
>Moreover, can we change the name to something like "non-standard" rather
>than "non-compliant," since if they are providing this flag according to
>the spec then they are in fact compliant with the spec.
I agree that it needs a different name ("dormant" or "status-only" might
be better than "non-standard" though). Would that address your questions
regarding "non-compliance" above, or would they apply regardless of the
name?
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 17:23:43 UTC