ACTION-392: Check with Jonathan about revising consent requirements (would adrianba's text suffice?)

I realize I let one of my actions slip, even though I had done the follow-up requested. There was a question in April whether something like Adrian's proposal regarding consent and education requirements for UAs and sites [0] would also satisfy the earlier proposal from Jonathan on requirements from sites (but it was towards the end of a call so we had lost Jonathan and some others). During conversations in Sunnyvale, it had sounded to me like Adrian's text might have support from some different corners.

In following up, as I understand it, Jonathan remained concerned that Adrian's list of requirements applied to sites gathering user-granted exceptions might not be sufficiently rigorous or enforceable. To me, it seemed that the key difference between Adrian's proposal and Jonathan's earlier text was that Jonathan specified that the choice be *separate* (or *independent*) from other choices.

Jonathan and others have also raised the question of whether our consent requirements for UAs would clearly determine whether some current browser implementations (say, IE in its different versions, or recent versions of Chrome) was compliant. I think that we would commonly wait on evaluating implementations for compliance (to determine sufficient interoperability) until after Last Call, or as part of CR, but it might be a good general standard that requirements can be relatively unambiguously interpreted by our potential implementers.



Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 05:43:47 UTC