W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Rough rec proposal: revisiting past decisions

From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:09:25 -0400
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7B65F863.63C4EAE6-ON852572C6.00742536-852572C6.00743704@LocalDomain>
To: "Thomas Roessler <tlr" <tlr@w3.org>
Just to be clear, this doesn't yet discharge the action. The intent behind 
the action is to update the text so that it is a recommendation (or moving 
in that direction), and, as you note, in the wiki. 

          Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect




Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
04/23/2007 02:59 PM

To
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
cc

Subject
Re: Rough rec proposal: revisiting past decisions







Discharging ACTION-198, again by e-mail and not yet in the Wiki
since I'm offline.

- MEZ asked what the relationship was with possible "drill-down"
  related requirements from the accessibility community.  That's
  unknown at this point, and no action item was issued to follow up.
  (Oooops, I wonder if there should be one.)

- Johnathan indicated that he likes the distinction between "native
  trust" and personal overrides.
 
- Johnathan asked whether the proposal was to have an overall log of
  decisions; Thomas indicated that that might be valuable, but that
  the key part was getting a sense of where trust in the current
  context comes from.

Source: http://www.w3.org/2007/04/18-wsc-minutes.html

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>







On 2007-04-02 16:37:02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
> To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:37:02 +0200
> Subject: Rough rec proposal: revisiting past decisions
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
> 
> Where users are offered with the ability to conditionally proceed
> with a transaction based on the detection of security issues, they
> need to be enabled to revisit these decisions when undergoing an
> interaction that is affected by them.
> 
> - activate through some general "help me" secure attention sequence?
> - shoul "revisit" involve reviewing or also changing past decisions?
> 
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 21:09:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 03:52:47 GMT