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

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, my objections are w.r.t. "primary chrome". I don't really care about
using extra pixels when someone double clicks a lock icon to get a detailed
view window. I am worried about taking up a huge amount of space in
omni-present "primary" chrome. I don't intend for my comments to extend to
"secondary" chrome. If someone asks for more info, I think you should give
them everything you've got...

On 8/9/07, Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>