- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:39:55 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 04:53:06 +0100, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: >> >> Its unfortunate that Anne chose to associate this with "license >> enforcement" (see quote below). WOFF has explicitly avoided any suggestion >> of "enforcement". > > My bad. All it takes to change this draft (and it really is that, we haven't > even published this, I just put some notes up on a URL) is sending me an > email with a suggestion of what would work instead :-) > > (Nothing really comes to mind unfortunately, otherwise this email would > announce a change had been made.) > > Cheers, > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ 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? And as we discussed maybe soften the word "enforcement" where it occurs in the text. Maybe "checking" instead. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 20:40:24 UTC