RE: extensions in Determining User Preference

Walter,

I agree that any technical standard that setups up compliance confirmation for the Server but not one for the signal setter is "pointless".  While we've done our best to introduce this disconnect in the WG process, it was ultimately decided to punt on this issue.  Expect to see more on this in Last Call comments.

That said, while difficult, web browser compliance can be discovered in a lab.  We can install a web browser and a specific plug-in and observe the interactions to determine if there was compliance.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 12:26 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: RE: extensions in Determining User Preference

On 2014-04-08 20:22, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> Mike and Team,
> 
> I respectfully disagree - we agreed in the past to maintain a strict 
> attachment to the web browser for v1 so to create alignment I believe 
> "MUST" is appropriate here.

Dear Shane,

Could you give a reference to such an agreement? I am only aware of an agreement to focus on the web browser, without wanting to preclude other agents. Moreover, for all intents and purposes a browser plug-in is part of the web browser.

Lastly, one must admire the tenacity with which you pursue including a
a) compliance rule in b) a technical specification for which c) non-compliance is fundamentally not even detectable for the server. This fits generally accepted notions of 'pointless'.

Regards,

  Walter

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 19:37:29 UTC