RE: ISSUE-239: Link to compliance document

Walter,

I'm in agreement with MAY and would like to discuss moving to MUST as that may be supportable as well for the reasons you've laid out.  Would there be legitimate scenarios where a Server would not be able to reliably put forth a compliance regime pointer?  Other than the typical "mid-implementation" scenarios, the only other one I can think of immediately is for markets where there isn't a local compliance option and existing ones may not translate well to that market due to local laws.  For example, for some APAC markets that have local Privacy Laws but no real self-regulatory compliance mechanism, I'm assuming no response here would be acceptable as long as the Server is operating within the bounds of local law.  Fair?

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:08 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-239: Link to compliance document

On 16/12/2013 15:23, mts-std@schunter.org wrote:

> If nobody makes a case for / against including this link, I suggest to 
> continue with the Status quo and reject Roy's proposed edit and not 
> include a link.

It may possibly be such a no-brainer that we accept at least the gist of Roy's proposed edit that we haven't really discussed it so far. If anything, since we are about control and transparency for the user, I would be in favour of strengthening the MAY into a MUST. Because it should be clear what compliance spec a site is following if it claims any form of compliance at all. It also meshes better with the way the web works than a specific compliance spec identifier.

Regards,

 Walter

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 18:53:43 UTC