Re: TPE: Closing ISSUE-138 and implementing the change proposed by ACTION-179?

Hi Davids,

thanks for the feedback.

I looked at the spec and I did not see language that requires the site 
to inform the user. The only requirement I saw was "The call to store an 
exception /must/ reflect the user's intention to grant an exception, at 
the time of the call. "

Don't you think think that the need to inform the user is too implicit 
in this sentence and needs to be expanded?
I believe that the user should learn the consequences of granting such 
an "exception thing"  (in some site specific way)

IMHO asking the user "do you grant a site-wide exception" would not be 
sufficient to inform the user since an average user would not understand 
the consequences of saying "yes".

What alternative proposals to we have?


On 09/01/2013 17:40, David Singer wrote:
> I think David's right; it would be better to make sure that the 
> normative text is clear and has the right sense.  The proposed text 
> contains words like 'should' and appears to be making requirements and 
> so on, and I fear it's more confusing than helpful.
> On Jan 8, 2013, at 16:58 , David Wainberg 
> < <>> 
> wrote:
>> It sounds nice, but I don't see why it should be included. But, 
>> first, I don't think it belongs in the TPE, as it is not related to 
>> the technical implementation of the spec. And, second, we should not 
>> burden the specification with commentary and opinion that do not go 
>> directly to helping implementers understand what they need to do to 
>> implement. Really all this text is saying is take to care to fully 
>> inform the user before taking their consent. Isn't this already 
>> obvious? Or is the text trying to make a substantive point about who 
>> should be responsible, in which case it should make the point clearly 
>> and in normative text?
>> On 1/8/13 12:50 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>> yes, some minor editorial work is needed.  I would also prefer to 
>>> not casually split an infinitive. :-)
>>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 9:45 , Kevin Kiley < 
>>> <>> wrote:
>>>> Should be 'utmost' instead of 'upmost' and I would drop the
>>>> possessive contraction and use 'it is' instead of it's. The contraction
>>>> doesn't make sense there amidst all the other exacting language.
>>>> Kevin Kiley
>>>> Original posting...
>>>> Hi Team,
>>>> I would like to initiate a text change and close one issues that have
>>>> been pending review for a while.
>>>> If I do not receive objections/feedback, I would ask our editors to
>>>> perform the corresponding updates
>>>> and then close the corresponding issues.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> matthias
>>>> -----------
>>>> ACTION-179: Draft section on seriousness of the request for a
>>>> user-granted exception (with ninja)
>>>> (
>>>> (issue 129 is already closed).
>>>> I would like to add this non-normative text to the TPE spec:
>>>> "<Non-Normative> Requesting and having an exception granted by a user is
>>>> a significant event and should be treated as such. When requesting
>>>> site-wide or web-wide exceptions, the upmost care should be taken in
>>>> relaying to the user the breadth and expanse of the exception they are
>>>> granting. This is not to suggest the party requesting the exception
>>>> takes on direct liability for the parties the user is granting an
>>>> exception to but rather it's critical that requesters of user granted
>>>> exceptions take care to appropriately express the scope of that
>>>> exception such that liability is appropriately placed on the parties
>>>> benefiting from the exception."
>>>> -----------------
>>>> ISSUE-138: Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI
>>>> - Question was: What can third parties without JS real-estate do to
>>>> obtain an exception.
>>>> Action 319 (
>>>> David Singer has proposed this text:
>>>> I suggest to introduce this text into the spec and close Action-319 and
>>>> ISSUE-138
>>> David Singer
>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 18:31:21 UTC