- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:18:20 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:32:49 +0100, Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org> wrote: >> >> I'd like the consideration section to reflect the intent we had. I would >> rather have us leave the MUST but change what we meant to be displayed to >> the user. Maybe "HOST of the requesting document". There are probably >> others with a better name for this field. > > Host is not really good either. You want to know secure versus insecure for > instance. Hmm, why is this? Nobody (including Opera) does this at the moment. > Now whether this is displayed as a lock versus http/https should > be up to the user agent. In fact, if the user agent comes up with a novel > idea to clearly indicate what page the dialog belongs to I think that should > be allowed as well. > If we said "host", that wouldn't prevent the UA from doing what you propose. > In specifications I have seen to date user interface requirements are never > a MUST. A SHOULD is really their upper bound. > You're right, but you're also aware of the amount of discussions we had in this area. I personally think it's fine to leave the requirement as a MUST and adjust the wording to match the implementations. Thanks, Andrei
Received on Friday, 19 November 2010 15:18:56 UTC