RE: Pull the plug on logotypes?

But the main point is, in our Features at Risk table, no one is 
implementing logotypes at all, in any form. While are necessary to get 
them through CR. If no one implements them, they won't make it. They're 
already a feature at risk. Does anyone think that they (or anyone else) 
will be implementing them as an add on for our CR phase? 

          Mez





From:
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To:
"Mary Ellen Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>, 
<public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Date:
10/01/2008 10:07 AM
Subject:
RE: Pull the plug on logotypes?




I disagree that the audio interactions are an issue.

The purpose of the logotype is to provide an immediately recognizable 
subject identity, The standard subject field in the X.509 cert contains 
sufficient information to provide text-to speech rendering of the subject 
identity.

There may be secure chrome issues for voice browsers but they do not have 
any connection to the logotypes issue since you wouldn't use them.



-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Mary Ellen Zurko
Sent: Fri 9/26/2008 5:11 PM
To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: Pull the plug on logotypes?

None of our participating browsers are implementing them:
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/FeaturesAtRisk

The audio interactions for accessibility are non trivial.

We won't have worked examples to sanity check.

I propose we remove them.

Thoughts?