- From: <michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:36:47 -0500
- To: <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>, <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>, <rachna.public@gmail.com>
Agreed, but you said site identification not window identification. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:41 AM To: McCormick, Mike Cc: Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com; public-wsc-wg@w3.org; rachna.public@gmail.com Subject: Re: ACTION-208: "Site Identifying Images in Chrome"displayrecommendation On 2007-06-10 23:47:00 -0500, michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com wrote: > *** MIKE: Here I must disagree. The favicon is never useful to > identify a site because it is completely untrustworthy for that > purpose. Anyone who uses favicons to identify sites effectively > proves why they're a bad idea security-wise. Well, the visual appearance of the rendering area of a browser window is as untrustworthy -- yet, it's highly useful when trying to identify the right window on your desktop. -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 13:37:31 UTC