Re: ACTION-253 - new recommendation proposal available for comment

Timothy Hahn wrote:
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> I certainly didn't want to constrain the proposal to require an 
> implementation to build or use a "flat" set of profiles.

Good. It reads a bit that way, but that can be fixed later I
guess.

> I could even envision how the configuration could be built up of some 
> cascading/over-riding/ordered set of profile chunks (think cascading 
> style sheets or replacing whole sub-trees of a DOM tree).  But all of 
> this would be an implementation detail or technique in my opinion.

Maybe. I guess the set-of-settings will always be browser specific
in general, but one might hope for more and more commonality as
things progress, esp. in terms of how things like TLS are handled.

So there is something here that's not browser specific, and which is
therefore potentially part of the proposal/REC and not just part of
the implementation.

As a web site, I'd like to advertise that if you use profile foo,
then you'll be able to use my site and further recommend that you
do use profile foo, since you'll then be "safer" in some sense.
That seems to call for a relatively standard way to name and import
those that's not totally browser/version specific. Again as the
web-site, I want mozilla-foo and opera-foo to be somehow
commensurate, to the extent possible.

> As to the question about signed profiles, again, I think that is an 
> implementaiton detail.

Think I disagree there. The exact representation of a signature
might be broswer specific, but the idea that they're signed and
verified isn't really. (Having said that I doubt we could find a
way to get this that's in scope for WSC.)

S.

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 11:50:06 UTC