Re: ACTION-253 - new recommendation proposal available for comment

Stephen Farrell wrote on 06/07/2007 07:51:26 AM:

> 
> 
> 
> Timothy Hahn wrote:
> > 
> > Stephen,
> > 
> > I certainly didn't want to constrain the proposal to require an 
> > implementation to build or use a "flat" set of profiles.
> 
> Good. It reads a bit that way, but that can be fixed later I
> guess.
> 
> > I could even envision how the configuration could be built up of some 
> > cascading/over-riding/ordered set of profile chunks (think cascading 
> > style sheets or replacing whole sub-trees of a DOM tree).  But all of 
> > this would be an implementation detail or technique in my opinion.
> 
> Maybe. I guess the set-of-settings will always be browser specific
> in general, but one might hope for more and more commonality as
> things progress, esp. in terms of how things like TLS are handled.
> 
> So there is something here that's not browser specific, and which is
> therefore potentially part of the proposal/REC and not just part of
> the implementation.
> 
> As a web site, I'd like to advertise that if you use profile foo,
> then you'll be able to use my site and further recommend that you
> do use profile foo, since you'll then be "safer" in some sense.
> That seems to call for a relatively standard way to name and import
> those that's not totally browser/version specific. Again as the
> web-site, I want mozilla-foo and opera-foo to be somehow
> commensurate, to the extent possible.
> 
> > As to the question about signed profiles, again, I think that is an 
> > implementaiton detail.
> 
> Think I disagree there. The exact representation of a signature
> might be broswer specific, but the idea that they're signed and
> verified isn't really. (Having said that I doubt we could find a
> way to get this that's in scope for WSC.)

Ok, I see your point here and agree.

> 
> S.
> 
>