- From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:35:25 -0400
- To: "Johnathan Nightingale <johnath" <johnath@mozilla.com>
- Cc: W3C WSC W3C WSC Public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF408D93F5.EE429CEA-ON852572B5.004A0599-852572B5.004AA720@LocalDomain>
Section 5.4 says it's out of scope (at least that's my reading). That's one of the reasons all active participants need to review wsc-usecases; so we're sure we get understanding and concensus on large items like this and don't circle around. As part of your review, you or anyone else can pushback on that item (or claim it needs further clarification and propose how it should be clarified). Mez Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office (t/l 333-6389) Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com> Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org 04/04/2007 11:03 AM To W3C WSC W3C WSC Public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org> cc Subject Note review point - Scoping non-UI recs Just one thing I wanted to raise for discussion, from my last review of the note. Scope (§4 & §5) It is not clear to me from the content on scoping whether we consider recommendations that don't require UI as being in-scope. Example: There is conversation in the community around mozilla supporting a "noscript" tag that would allow sites like myspace to disable javascript execution on sites with user-supplied content. There wouldn't be any UI hit here, the user agent would just quietly not execute potentially-dangerous code. Putting aside the question of whether this particular recommendation would fall afoul of the "no introducing new technology" section 5.4, it seems like "user agents quietly fixing things" might be a fertile ground for recommendations. Indeed, my own opinion is that a lot of web security issues are best handled quietly by the user agent instead of putting confusing information or questions to the user. Does the group consider this kind of recommendation to be in scope, or do we concern ourselves only with interactions that explicitly include information/questions for the user? In either event, it might be worthwhile to introduce clarifying language. If a consensus is reached for or against, I will take an action to propose a text change to the group. Cheers, Johnathan --- Johnathan Nightingale Human Shield johnath@mozilla.com
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 13:35:33 UTC