- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:53:26 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Please remember that the scope is not just legislation but any kind of legal control - including judgments, regulations, and (I would think) even contracts. Jonathan On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> wrote: > 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 00:53:54 UTC