- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:00:42 +0100
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:54:57 +0100, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-courier at farside.org.uk> wrote: > Jim Ley writes: > > Which is why it makes sense to me for it to be a SHOULD. it's what > > should's for after all, you can further constrain it within the spec > > with the default behaviour MUST be, users need to be made aware etc. > > "A UA _may_ allow the user to disable support for this attribute. Support > _must_ be enabled by default, and the ability to disable support _should > not_ be trivially accessible, as there are significant security implications > for the user if support for this attribute is disabled." > > How about something like that? It more accurately reflects existing > practice, and allows us to mark the current implementations as compliant. Yeah, that reads well, perhaps add something like "as there are significant security implications for the user if support for this attribute is disabled which he MUST be informed of before changing." but otherwise, yep, much better. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 03:00:42 UTC