Re: Pull the plug on logotypes?

I obviously do not speak for Microsoft, but I have been told that it's
highly unlikely that IE would be implementing this.  Phill and anyone else
involved in CAB Forum should be aware of Microsoft's position: trademark is
highly territorial and therefore cannot be enforced globally.  Creating a
security indicator that assumes the opposite will not be effective and
creates many potential legal problems for implementors.

serge

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Mary Ellen Zurko <
Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> But the main point is, in our Features at Risk table, no one is
> implementing logotypes at all, in any form. While are necessary to get them
> through CR. If no one implements them, they won't make it. They're already a
> feature at risk. Does anyone think that they (or anyone else) will be
> implementing them as an add on for our CR phase?
>
>           Mez
>
>
>
>
>   From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> To: "Mary Ellen
> Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>, <public-wsc-wg@w3.org> Date: 10/01/2008
> 10:07 AM Subject: RE: Pull the plug on logotypes?
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> I disagree that the audio interactions are an issue.
>
> The purpose of the logotype is to provide an immediately recognizable
> subject identity, The standard subject field in the X.509 cert contains
> sufficient information to provide text-to speech rendering of the subject
> identity.
>
> There may be secure chrome issues for voice browsers but they do not have
> any connection to the logotypes issue since you wouldn't use them.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Mary Ellen Zurko
> Sent: Fri 9/26/2008 5:11 PM
> To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Pull the plug on logotypes?
>
> None of our participating browsers are implementing them:*
> **http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/FeaturesAtRisk*<http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/FeaturesAtRisk>
>
> The audio interactions for accessibility are non trivial.
>
> We won't have worked examples to sanity check.
>
> I propose we remove them.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>


-- 
/*
I am Serge Egelman and I approve this message.

*/