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

I assumed the discussion was regarding display within primary chrome.
No?

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:56 AM
To: Ian Fette
Cc: Johnathan Nightingale; Web Security Context Working Group WG
Subject: Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a
MAY? [Techniques]


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 Friday, 10 August 2007 20:31:10 UTC