RE: consistency observation re absence of trustworthy information (Re: Discussion of 6.1 for LC June)

I can claim some paternity if the specification contains text from my
original proposals in the following areas:
 1. Favicons  2. Certificate Error Messages  3. Page Security Scoring
 
All three made the Editor's Draft and I believe at least 2 of the 3 made
it to the LC June document in some form.
 
Thanks, Mike

  _____  

From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Mary Ellen Zurko
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:17 AM
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: consistency observation re absence of trustworthy
information (Re: Discussion of 6.1 for LC June)



I had read that as something more trivial; that whenever various
identity states where shown, EACH state was always shown consistently
(not between states, but withn state, as it were). 

But I'm good with it either way. 




From: 	Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> 
To: 	Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com> 
Cc: 	public-wsc-wg@w3.org 
Date: 	03/08/2008 07:17 AM 
Subject: 	consistency observation re absence of trustworthy
information (Re:         Discussion of 6.1 for LC June)

  _____  




On 2008-03-07 08:58:55 -0500, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

> Current text is at:
> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#IdentitySignal
<http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#IdentitySignal> 
>
> Issue 1) Requiring a "no identity" state, particularly in primary
chrome.
> The text:
> User interactions to access this identity signal MUST be consistent
across
> all Web interactions facilitated by the user agent, including
interactions
> during which the Web user agent has no trustworthy information about
the
> [[identity]] of the Web site that a user interacts with. In this case,
> user agents SHOULD indicate that no information is available.

Reading this text again, carefully, I notice that the SHOULD in the
second sentence seems inconsistent with the MUST in the first one.
In other words, I can't think of a way to be conformant with the
MUST, but not the SHOULD.  I'll therefore change the SHOULD in that
second sentence to a MUST, and aim to keep it consistent across both
sentences.

(If somebody can come up with a consistent example, or if we
otherwise decide to modify this part, I'll happily change this back
-- this change is about consistency only.)

--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>