[pessimizer]

That's the definition of scare quotes.

"Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning."

"If scare quotes are enclosing a word or phrase that does not represent a quotation from another source they may simply serve to alert the reader that the word or phrase is used in an unusual, special, or non-standard way or should be understood to include caveats to the conventional meaning."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

[freehunter]

I would have thought the "proposed" and "defunct" clauses would indicate that "standard" was in name only. The term "scare quotes" indicates to the reader that the writer is intending to mislead or persuade. I don't agree that my usage constitutes what is generally accepted as scare quotes, but even if you disagree, the point still stands. IE is stomping its feet complaining that Google isn't supporting a standard that only IE supports (when even the standards body doesn't support it anymore).

Come up with a better standard, then complain when Google breaks it. Otherwise it's just another example of Google being "evil" (that's scare quotes).

[pessimizer]

Scare quotes don't have anything to do with your opinion of the author. Scare quotes are quotes that are editorial rather than informational.

[freehunter]

http://www.w3.org/P3P/

Particularly

After a successful Last Call, the P3P Working Group decided to publish the P3P 1.1 Specification as a Working Group Note to give P3P 1.1 a provisionally final state. The P3P Specification Working Group took this step as there was insufficient support from current Browser implementers for the implementation of P3P 1.1. The P3P 1.1 Working Group Note contains all changes from the P3P 1.1 Last Call. The Group thinks that P3P 1.1 is now ready for implementation. It is not excluded that W3C will push P3P 1.1 until Recommendation if there is sufficient support for implementation.

This is the last update from the group that was posted in 2006. It's never been pushed by the W3C, and the browser creators never implemented it.

[pessimizer]

I have absolutely no opinion on the standard, so I'm not sure why you keep telling me extraneous shit. Read what I typed; don't get upset when people accuse you of using scare quotes when you're using scare quotes.

edit: sorry, I was wrestling with a stubborn CPU fan, and you seemed like that CPU fan. Turns out the CPU fan was not stubborn, but well-designed, and I probably wasn't communicating well.

[freehunter]

This reply was misposted, it was supposed to be in response to someone else. I've copied and pasted it to the correct person, but cannot delete this one.

I have no idea what your edit means, but I'm going to take is as a compliment and believe we were both mistaken on each others arguments. Because I like to keep things cool, like a CPU fan.

[pessimizer]

My edit meant that I was swearing at strangers on the internet about definitions. That's a bit overheated. Now we're both just passively cooling.

[recoiledsnake]

>when even the standards body doesn't support it anymore

Don't they? I am curious, do you have a reference for that?

[freehunter]

http://www.w3.org/P3P/

Particularly

After a successful Last Call, the P3P Working Group decided to publish the P3P 1.1 Specification as a Working Group Note to give P3P 1.1 a provisionally final state. The P3P Specification Working Group took this step as there was insufficient support from current Browser implementers for the implementation of P3P 1.1. The P3P 1.1 Working Group Note contains all changes from the P3P 1.1 Last Call. The Group thinks that P3P 1.1 is now ready for implementation. It is not excluded that W3C will push P3P 1.1 until Recommendation if there is sufficient support for implementation.

This is the last update from the group that was posted in 2006. It's never been pushed by the W3C, and the browser creators never implemented it.