- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:09:55 +0200
- To: WSC WG public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
In dealing with timeless' comments: http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/ISSUE-244 http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/39814/WD-wsc-ui-20100309/2380 lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-usable-authentication/2010Mar/0007.html ... we seem to have made a mistake during our 31 March meeting: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/31-wsc-minutes.html If you look at the comment in 0007.html, then you'll notice that timeless is complaining about the identity signal. That's what we *discussed* during the 31 March call. However, the links in the minutes, the resolution, and the subsequent edit are all about the *TLS* indicator. To mess up things further, there's another part of timeless' comments that seems to suggest he's objecting against the language for the TLS indicator in the same way in which he objects against the language for the identity signal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-usable-authentication/2010Mar/0008.html (Kudos to Mez for noticing the screw-up. The blame goes to me for copying and pasting the wrong link into IRC during the meeting.) Up to the latest Last Call draft, we've treated the conformance criteria for TLS indicator and identity signal symmetrically: - in the Candidate Recommendation, both were SHOULD primary, otherwise MUST secondary - in the latest Last Call, both were MUST primary - in the current editor's draft, we've introduced a divergence between the two. PROPOSAL, to address the comment: Let's return to the symmetric situation and change both to be SHOULD primary, MUST secondary. Thoughts? (Editor's draft not yet updated.) Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 21:09:57 UTC