- From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:52:02 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, Tracking Protection Working Group <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 2014-10-22 18:40, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Also, some people have misconstrued testability to mean that the remote > participant needs to be able to test the requirement. That is not true. > It only needs to be testable by someone inspecting the behavior of the > implementation in accordance with the standard, which could be anyone > (including the user that installed a copy of the implementation). We may have a clash of jargons here (again). The way you describe testability is still more restrictive than is realistic for a compliance specification I think, but one that is workable to a point. Legal people tend to use "transparency" in the sense that it is predictable whether something meets a requirement or not without having to invoke the courts (which none should ever willingly do anyway). I do agree that testability in that way is very much worth striving for, but not meeting that ultimate bar should not be out of the question. Also I would say that someone in the field of installing implementations that intend to adhere to DNT:1 should be at least somewhat familiar with the basics of access control to webserver logfiles. Also, I have never understood 'testable' as verifiable by a remote participant. Although that would be lovely to have whenever technically possible, which it very rarely is. Regards, Walter
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 16:52:49 UTC