- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:31:26 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
I agree, this sounds like a good approach. I do think we might want to avoid stating specifically: "In jurisdiction J we see law L which we interpret in such and such a way, and which results in architectural impact I". Rather, we might say: "If a law >were to be passed in some jurisdiction that imposed limitation L, then the architectural impact would be...". By all means, the examples we choose should be inspired by the sorts of laws we see being passed in practice. I just think it's best if we avoid giving our interpretations of the legal impact of particular specific laws, even if we are doing so to make an architectural point. Noah On 6/30/2012 6:56 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: > The approach I am hoping to take is to talk about the architectural impact of various regulatory and legislative measures, especially because the internet is global, and the fact that different jurisdictions have different requirements means that web content and service providers can't simultaneously meet all of the requirements and continue to operate. > > That is, the TAG is not comment on legislation, but rather on the technical/architectural impact of current legislation, especially when legislation varies across jurisdictions. I think that's in scope for the TAG, since it's focused on how to get architecture that meets requirements. > > Larry > > >
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2012 00:32:00 UTC