Re: June Change Proposal: Partial Compliance

This is tracking-ISSUE-213

*sigh*

On Jul 1, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, noted here:
>> 	http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Partial_Compliance
> 
> It is hopelessly impotent to require "not partial compliance", since
> the first requirement that a partially compliant implementation
> won't implement is that requirement.
> 
> The right way to require this is to create distinct communication
> about full compliance or partial compliance or non-compliance,
> each of which communicates a strict set of complied requirements.
> It might be the case that we define a protocol that has no way to
> communicate partial or non-compliance, which is a sensible design
> point that this WG can reach agreement on (if we ever bother to
> make a call for consensus).
> 
> Requiring full compliance, OTOH, is just senseless grandstanding.
> We don't need to change the protocol to support a fear of
> perception of compliance when we are a long way from convincing
> anyone to comply at all.  We need to encourage people to implement.
> 
> ....Roy