Skip to content

Conversation

csarven
Copy link
Member

@csarven csarven commented Sep 17, 2025

Closes #13

Adding this section after the Abstract because it doesn't fit elsewhere at the moment. If we introduce an Introduction section, the contents of this section can be moved there.


Preview | Diff

Comment on lines +29 to +31
* **User agent developers** who want to align implementations with design and privacy principles that prioritize their users.
* **Regulators and policymakers** who need criteria to assess whether user agents fulfill their duties to users.
* **Technical authors** who want to reuse or reference these concepts in their own specifications or documentation.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the last sentence is overstepping:

Suggested change
* **User agent developers** who want to align implementations with design and privacy principles that prioritize their users.
* **Regulators and policymakers** who need criteria to assess whether user agents fulfill their duties to users.
* **Technical authors** who want to reuse or reference these concepts in their own specifications or documentation.
* **Spec writers**, who need to normatively or informatively reference the concept herein in their own specifications or documentation.
* **User agent developers**, who want to align implementations with design and privacy principles as described in the manner described in this document.
* **Regulators and policymakers**, who need understand what constitutes a user agent.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"Technical authors" is intentional. It covers both spec writers as well as anyone generally contributing to specification development. But it also includes anyone that is writing a document (not necessarily a "spec") that needs to refer to these concepts.

* **User agent developers** who want to align implementations with design and privacy principles that prioritize their users.
* **Regulators and policymakers** who need criteria to assess whether user agents fulfill their duties to users.
* **Technical authors** who want to reuse or reference these concepts in their own specifications or documentation.

Copy link
Contributor

@marcoscaceres marcoscaceres Sep 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
* **Web developers**, who need to understand why certain choices are made in standardizing technology (particularly as to why certain features prioritize user privacy, security, over developer need).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also think Web Developers are third on this list. There are orders of magnitude more web developers reading specs than regulators (and there are lots more web developers than regulators).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But those web developers are not implementing or using the concepts in this document. Regulators/policymakers on the other hand get a canonical reference to what constitutes a user agent.

Anyone in theory can read this document but I don't think we are writing it in a way that web (platform) developers can have direct use. At least that's my understanding of what's expected here thus far.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

State the intended audience of the document
2 participants