I'm going to be participating in SING (once it is chartered), which I expect to take over these security request reviews, and will volunteer to review the W3C Vision document once that group is operational. Since that group doesn't exist yet, and I can't do the review in that capacity, I've performed a review in my capacity as an AC Rep.

Overall, the document is excellent. Thank you for those that have put the time and care into the creation of the document. The language is aligned with what I expect most of the W3C Members (that have been around for a while) believe the W3C is and does.

The document only mentions the word security once, in the context of thorough review, which is probably fine. It also only mentions safety once, and leans more on privacy than security in that reference. If there is no security on the Web, there is no safety and no trust. I'm struggling to think of what more we could say on the matter that wouldn't dive into the details, but the language seems a bit light on the security and safety front at the moment.

I found two other issues that were more concrete that I've already raised on the specification, here:

w3c/AB-public#211
w3c/AB-public#212

@msporny thanks for the review. @tantek I liked that we have:

The Web must be safe to use

Referring to the ethical principles which includes privacy and security (and safety).

More than anything a linguistic question (considering that at least in Italian we translate “safety” and “security” in the same way), is there a specific reason why “safe” was used in this context and "security" in the ethical principles?

If there are no more points, we can close the issue

@github.com/simoneonofri wrote:

> is there a specific reason why “safe” was used in this context and "security" in the ethical principles?

I believe we used the term “safe” as in safety as inclusive of both privacy and security in the linked principle as you noted. Both of those (and potentially more) are aspects of user safety, which is the perspective we wanted to capture and express, the human’s perspective.

From a copywriting and readability perspective, we tried very hard to keep those specific points as short and broadly understandable (without any jargon implications) as possible.

Simone, if you find that answer satisfactory, please feel free to close this issue as completed. Thanks again for your diligent review and follow-up, appreciated.

(Originally published at: https://tantek.com/2025/106/t4/)

@tantek thank you for the explanation :) for example in italian we translates "safety" and "security" with the same term "sicurezza"