- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 20:18:25 +0100
- To: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
- Cc: Web Security Context Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>, public-wsc-wg@w3.org
On 2008-03-07 10:33:54 -0800, Ian Fette wrote: > Because I for one am never going to use petnames, and therefore don't want > to see Petname: none always showing. > If a user has defiend a petname for a site, then I'm fine with > language around should, but I don't want to see should without > the caveat. e.g. "If a user has defined a petname for a site, > that petname SHOULD be displayed as part of the identity signal" > or whatever. But the "If" is important. There are two questions here: - Should petnames, if present, be part of an identity signal? - Should the absence of petnames be signalled? I don't really have an opinion on the second one (though I'd note that at least some modern browsers indicate, e.g., whether the currently visited page is bookmarked -- that gets close), but I think we should make a much stronger statement than MAY about the first one. -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 19:18:42 UTC