W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2014

Re: MIME type; except/permit naming

From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 19:59:53 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B3EC05E9-76AF-4F44-BA2B-B7BFE848FD33@w3.org>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
On March 20, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:28 AM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
>> ## naming of user-granted exceptions
>> 
>> Although we opened it up on the Compliance product, this issue about naming
>> is actually as much or more relevant to the TPE. Specifically, since "exceptions"
>> are not errors/exceptions and might not be exceptional to a general preference,
>> should we call these "user-granted permissions" instead of "user-granted exceptions"?
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/212
>> 
>> This wouldn't change any functional, just a find-and-replace with the name throughout,
>> but I've heard it come up a couple of times and if we want to change this, doing
>> so before Last Call will make public reviews/comments easier.
> 
> In the past (I think at the Boston meeting a year ago) I made the suggestion to have
> this be the permissions API, rather than "exceptions". However since then we have shipped
> what we believe to be a conforming implementation of this API in IE11. While we all accept
> the risk that things might change when shipping a feature from an unfinished spec, I think
> it would be a shame if we changed just the name at this stage. I emphasised during the
> Boston meeting that we wanted to get things as stable as possible to allow for our
> implementation to proceed and the group worked hard to that end.
> 
> I don't have a strong feeling about this - if the strong consensus of the group is to
> change the names then we'll have to live with that and update them in a future release
> of IE - but I think my preference now is to stick with what we've had for a long time.

That's understandable, and it certainly seems useful that we can have an existing browser implementation to test on right away. It sounded to me when we discussed this on the phone that a lot of people didn't have strong feelings either way, since it's the naming of an API. Mike, I think you raised this issue, would you accept leaving the terms as-is?

Thanks,
Nick

Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 03:00:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:09 UTC