Privacy advocates, public interest groups and even some celebrities are raising alarms about a proposal that could limit the ability of some website owners to disguise themselves.
The issue has caught fire over the past few months as an obscure organization that manages the Internet's domain name system was inundated with comments about a proposal that could bar commercial websites from using proxies to register their web addresses.
Advocates argue anonymity is a key feature of free speech online, and removing that protection from people who create a website for commercial purposes could open vulnerable populations up to abuse.
El Reg reports:
As it stands on the last day of the comment period – 7 July – there are over 11,000 responses and the issue may break the previous record when ICANN proposed giving the green light to internet extension '.xxx' which would be used exclusively for adult content websites (in that case there were 12,757 comments).
Get while the gettin's good, Anonymous Cowards!
[Editor's Note: The "obscure organization" being ICANN...]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2015, @09:47AM
Well, the tokenizer only checks that each word is OK. It's the parser that checks the grammar. And even that is not yet semantic analysis; it's the latter that determines if the sentence makes sense.
Consider "Red green flies read unknown little rocks."
The tokenizer will tell you it's OK: all of "red", "green", "flies", "read", "unknown", "little" and "rocks" are valid words, and also the full stop at the end is a valid token.
The parser also will tell you that everything is OK, it perfectly parses as simple sentence with subject "red green flies" (a plural noun with two adjectives), verb "read" and object "unknown little rocks" (again a noun with two adjectives).
Only semantic analysis will tell you that the sentence doesn't make sense.