Re: Removal of the note about extensions

Though I'd claim that "encourage" actually is more reflective of the WG's
consensus, I'm mostly fine with Mike's phrasing as a compromise (with some
slight tweaking: I'd replace "CSP enforcement" with "the enforcement of a
protected resource's Content Security Policy").

-mike

--
Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>
>