- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:11:32 +0100
- To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Matthias, this would remedy my concerns. I can't tell for Nick. It would maintain that the signal is still a user preference and controlled by the user, not entirely by the service. So just a +1 from me. And no, a MUST would not be ok IMHO. BTW, browsers still need to notify the user for geolocation anyway. And there, it is a MUST for those doing business in the EU as 2002/58EC requires an indicator when geolocation is active. We could just piggy bag on this without being too prescriptive. Rigo On Saturday 09 February 2013 21:13:45 Matthias Schunter wrote: > Hi! > > During our discussions, we agreed that in exchange that sites can now > control the user experience (and bogus sites can go without any user > experience), we now allow user agents to modify, update, ... the > exceptions to align with the preferences of the users. > > I think that the right way towards remediating the concerns of > Nick/Rigo would be language that says that "user agents SHOULD > validate that stored exceptions reflect user preference" (e.g., by > displaying a temporary baloon "xx has stored exception" or by > allowing review of the database or the like. > > I would go for a SHOULD (not MUST) since there will be cases where a > browser cannot do any validation due to limited user interface. > > Opinions?
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2013 11:12:02 UTC