On 21/10/2017 05:00, Stephen Farrell wrote:
...
> - "Our websites are not intended for use by children under
> 13 years old." That's still wrong. If it said "not specifically
> designed for" or "not targeted at" that'd be ok. Yes, you
> might come back to me and say "COPPA" but IMO that's not a
> good answer to a comment that the quoted sentence is untrue.
> It is untrue because we do not take any action to prevent
> under-13's from using the web site which is how I'd interpret
> "not intended for" - that's perhaps a US-English issue, not
> sure.
I disagree. To me, "intended" describes a state of mind. The site
is not intended for dogs either, and we do not take any action to
prevent dogs using the site.
Some stylists would object to the passive tense. I don't know if
there would be any legal issues in writing "The IETF does not
intend..." but that would make it even clearer IMHO.
(Also, what would we do if we discovered that a particularly
bright new contributor turned out to be a 12 year-old child
genius? Nothing, I hope.)
Brian