RE: ISSUE-239: Link to compliance document

David and Roy,

Couldn't a well known resource suffice in this case?  This would allow the research option to occur outside the context of an actual transaction.  The downside will be that Servers will likely support more than a single compliance standard in different markets (US vs. DE, for example) so we'll need to think through how to add that perspective in a well known resource structured array.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:32 PM
To: Nicholas Doty
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: ISSUE-239: Link to compliance document


On Jan 8, 2014, at 8:43 , Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:

> I wasn't suggesting that any of these UI suggestions were good or likely, but in defining the terms that will be communicated over the protocol, we generally add them only if we think they may be used by the client. If we don't think any users will review the compliance array and we don't expect or don't want user agents to block/allow resources based on those values, then providing the extra configurability is not valuable.

I think that there is great value in providing transparency (in both directions) for researchers and others, even if during much of the time fields are not inspected in real-time.  I.e. I think it a non-sequitur that information should not be available at all if it's not used all the time in real-time.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 01:55:25 UTC