- From: Dan Schutzer <dan.schutzer@fstc.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:45:48 -0400
- To: "'Johnathan Nightingale'" <johnath@mozilla.com>, "'Web Security Context Working Group WG'" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
I would vote for SHOULD -----Original Message----- From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Johnathan Nightingale Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 12:39 PM To: Web Security Context Working Group WG Subject: Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] As the one who raised it, I suppose I should chime in. My opinion, as expressed on the call, is that it should be MAY in both cases. I don't think we should mandate (MUST) or even recommend (SHOULD) the use of identity signals which currently have no standardized validation methodology. I think it's entirely appropriate and worthwhile, however, to call logotype support to the attention of would-be implementors, should they elect to use it (MAY). Is this the straw poll Mez wanted? Cheers, J On 8-Aug-07, at 12:51 PM, Web Security Context Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? > [Techniques] > > http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/ > > Raised by: Thomas Roessler > On product: Techniques > > Should support for the display of logotypes be listed as a MAY or a > SHOULD? > > a) in primary chrome? > b) in secondary chrome? > > > > --- Johnathan Nightingale Human Shield johnath@mozilla.com
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 16:46:30 UTC