- From: Mike Beltzner <beltzner@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:11:06 -0400
- To: Robert Yonaitis <ryonaitis@hisoftware.com>
- Cc: <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
On 3-Apr-07, at 2:43 PM, Robert Yonaitis wrote: >> 2.2 Relevance of security information >> The Working Group will analyze common use cases to determine what >> security information a user requires to proceed safely and >> recommend security information that should, or should not, be >> presented in each case. > When we say "What security information a user requires to proceed" > isn't this a bit to strong, could this not create the presumption > of liability for people working on this document. Wouldn't it be > better to say something more vague: > > "what security information a user at least in part requires to > proceed safely" > > ** Note I am not a lawyer, but the word requires (the way it was > used) seems to strong to me. I don't think anyone's expecting this document to create a contractual obligation between the user and the browser ;) A simple s/requires/needs/ might soften this so it doesn't sound so strong. The intent of this statement is that it's the goal of this group to determine what data amongst the morass of technical information that describes the connection between two internet endpoints is actually relevant to users for the purposes of proceeding safely. cheers, mike
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 14:11:12 UTC