I'm not clear on what you call primary chrome and what you call secondary chrome. But my point is that this type of information (issuer, validator, logo) would have to be in a part of the UA's chrome, and a part of the chrome that is trusted, and that basically takes up a ton of real estate. On 8/9/07, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote: > > On 2007-08-09 09:52:20 -0700, Ian Fette wrote: > > > One thing I worry about a lot of the proposals in the current > > draft is that we are expecting browsers and other UAs to give up > > a ton of screen real-estate. Browsers already take up a ton of > > real-estate as it is, and if you put something in a browser, it's > > almost impossible to take it out. We had this discussion back in > > New York (march 06 or whatever it was). I'm extremely reluctant > > to say that browsers SHOULD give up screen real-estate when we > > have no data to say that it's going to solve the problem (or even > > help in a meaningful way). As such, I would vote against a > > proposal containing SHOULD, because I fear that it would make > > people write off the whole document as unrealistic. And what > > about a mobile browser? Do you think that on my 320x240 > > resolution phone that a browser SHOULD take up 100x50 pixels to > > display the subject, issuer, and a logo? I don't.... > > > OK, so maybe that was $.03, but I won't charge you the extra > > penny ;-) > > Are you arguing secondary chrome, primary chrome, or both? Some of > what you say sounds like it's focused on primary chrome only. > > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> >
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 18:10:39 UTC