W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2011

Re: fyi: Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Restrictions

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:00:48 +0200
To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Message-ID: <op.vx5inmnx64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:39:55 +0200, Jonathan Rees  
<jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> Since the restrictions are assumed voluntarily by the user-agent
> because of its interest in complying with the desires of content
> publishers, whether as a matter of goodwill, contract, or legislation,
> "restriction" is not a good word to use, since it sounds like
> something the publisher is empowered to do. How about a title
> involving "compliance" or "exclusion"?
> Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Compliance Assistance
> Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Policy Compliance
> Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Exclusion
> Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Exclusion Protocol   [thanks to ml@cc
> for this one]
> or something along those lines?

I went for "Exclusion".

> And as we discussed maybe soften the word "enforcement" where it
> occurs in the text. Maybe "checking" instead.

Done, also avoided using "restrictions" in the text.


For a unified diff see:


Thanks for your suggestions!

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 15:01:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:39 UTC