- From: Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:54:41 -0400
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
On 19-Mar-08, at 5:43 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote: > * Otherwise, when the logotype information is derived from a > validated certificate, then the issuer logotype MUST be > rendered, if present. My reading of this is that if we decide to include logotype information in the document at all, user agents will be required to devote more screen real estate to the CA than to the site itself. That feels like the kind of thing that sets users up to be confused, "bobsflowers.com has a VeriSign logo? Hunh?" I think the intent here is that we want to call out: - Subject logotypes that haven't been validated shouldn't be shown - Issuer logotypes are fine To that end, then, I'd have expected the quoted bullet to read: > * Otherwise, when the logotype information is derived from a > validated certificate, then the issuer logotype MAY be > rendered, if present, but the subject logotype SHOULD NOT be > displayed Am I misinterpreting? Cheers, Johnathan --- Johnathan Nightingale Human Shield johnath@mozilla.com
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 13:55:27 UTC