Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques]

Thomas' distinction (in rough terms, because precise definitions in  
this space tend to be slippery, historically) is between standard  
browser chrome - back button, url bar, standard ever-present primary  
UI - and browser UI that you have to ask for, and which is generated  
in supplementary dialog boxes/windows, etc.

So his point is that your objection to yielding pixels makes it sound  
like you are focused on primary, "ever-present" chrome, and he wants  
to know if you also intend your comments to apply to, e.g. Page Info  
dialogs, or "click here for more information" style supplementary UI.

Cheers,

J

On 9-Aug-07, at 2:10 PM, Ian Fette wrote:

> 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>
>

---
Johnathan Nightingale
Human Shield
johnath@mozilla.com