Re: [draft] seeking clarification from Anna Zhuang

This was almost a week ago.  Can I send this one, please?
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>







On 31 Mar 2009, at 17:21, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> I propose that we seek clarification on Anna's comment.  Draft  
> message below.  Anything else that we need to ask?
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
>> Date: 31 March 2009 17:09:13 GMT+02:00
>> To: Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com
>> Cc: WSC WG public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>, public-usable-authentication@w3.org
>> Subject: Your comment on WSC-UI
>>
>> Hi Anna,
>>
>> thanks for your comment on the WSC-UI last call working draft.  The  
>> Web Security Context Working Group has started to consider your  
>> comments.   Some of them seem to be relatively generic, and we're  
>> wondering whether you could elaborate a bit further.
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>>> *** Term mobile is not mentioned at all - nor the UI and  
>>> interaction constraints that brings. Generally, the document gives  
>>> an impression that mibile environment has neither been considered  
>>> nor being addressed at the time of writing the guidelines. E.g. in  
>>> cases of error/warning conditions the user has to interact (ok so  
>>> far, but depends on what you define as error/warning). However,  
>>> limited real-estate of a mobile device is not considered at all.  
>>> If the guideline wants to define UI elements (how they should  
>>> look),  the issue is that UI elements that work for the PC do not  
>>> necessarily work for the handheld.
>>
>> The specification was reviewed by participants with mobile  
>> expertise from Ericsson (not S-E, though) and Opera; we've tried to  
>> express things generically enough so we don't overconstrain mobile  
>> implementations.  Are there specific requirements in the document  
>> that you think are problematic from a mobile perspective?
>>
>>> *** Many terms in the document don't have any definition at all.  
>>> Some terms that are unique to this document don't have sufficient  
>>> explanation of justification for their introduction:
>>
>>
>> Can you point at specific terms that you had issues with?  We had  
>> one comment in the past that dealt with terms of art generally  
>> known in the security community, but perhaps not outside that.
>>
>> (The points that I haven't taken up here seem reasonably reasonably  
>> clear, and we'll get back to you later.)
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>