W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Removal of the note about extensions

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:54:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+d5_2P0qxNRmaaLGoYDe54Mf=f-UZBY2myi2THdHAb_uQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Pomax Kamermans <pomax@nihongoresources.com>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Mike "Pomax" Kamermans <
pomax@nihongoresources.com> wrote:

>  On 2/24/2014 3:05 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>
>   If we had to rephrase, I'd suggest something like "User agents are
>> encouraged to allow users to modify or bypass CSP enforcement, through user
>> preferences and/or third-party additions to the user-agent" so that we're
>> not tied to specifically bookmarklets and extensions.
>
>
>  I could accept this if "encouraged" were changed to "permitted".
>
>
> Hmm, do we have another, less loaded word that we can use here? Permitted
> seems to strike the wrong tone (i.e. "we don't want you to, but if you
> absolutely must, fine, it is permitted"). What about simply "may":
>
> "User agents may allow users to modify or bypass CSP enforcement, through
> user preferences and/or third-party additions to the user-agent".
>

That works. [I interpret "may" as IS PERMITTED BUT NOT REQUIRED to do X.] I
made this suggested change to avoid the biased term "encouraged", which
constitutes a recommendation, and thus is non-neutral. In contrast "may" or
"permitted" is neutral in standards speak.


>
>
> - Mike
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 00:55:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:04 UTC