- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 07:54:09 -0400
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
Yes, sorry, that's right. I hope my suggestion generalizes in the obvious way. Noah On 6/30/2012 8:53 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > 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 11:54:33 UTC