Re: ISSUE-116 (Hal): Should users be able to reconfigure primary chrome? [Techniques]

> As a side issue in the debate over logotypes, Phil implied that  
> users might reconfigure their primary chrome to for example,  
> suppress some of the information. Given the amount of attention we  
> have paid to using primary chrome to display WSC, and the fact that  
> there could be interdependence between distinct indicators, this  
> appears to present some risks.
>
> At the very least the doc should make a clear statement of what is  
> allowed or not allowed.
>
> I suggest the following.
>
> 1. The user agent MUST NOT permit programs to reconfigure the  
> primary chrome via API in such a way as to hide any of the  
> indicators that this document requires be displayed in primary chrome.

This language (or very similar language) is already in the Robustness  
section 7.3.1.

> I can live with either of the following, but slightly prefer 2a.
>
> 2a. The user agent MUST NOT permit the user to administratively  
> reconfigure the primary chrome in such a way as to hide any of the  
> indicators that this document requires be displayed in primary chrome.

I disagree with this recommendation pretty strongly.  We would not  
constrain our users in this way, and as long as we shipped something  
conformant, I'm not sure the W3C should care what users do to  
deliberately alter their own software.

> 2b. The initial configuration of the user user agent MUST show all  
> of the indicators that this document requires be displayed in  
> primary chrome. The user agent SHOULD NOT permit the user to  
> administratively reconfigure the primary chrome in such a way as to  
> hide any of these indicators. If the user agent does permit this,  
> it MUST provide a mechanism to easily reset the user agent to  
> display the all the required indicators in primary chrome.

The first sentence here seems to boil down to "the initial  
configuration MUST comply with this document" which feels redundant,  
isn't that already a guarantee of software complying with the  
requirements?  The second sentence I disagree with as mentioned above.

The last sentence is an interesting proposal on it's own, I think.

Cheers,

J

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

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 19:19:56 UTC