Re: ISSUE-244: UI conformance criteria for TLS indicator and Identity Signal [wsc-xit]

> >>> To clarify the identity signal and TLS indicator language, I 
propose:
> >>> 
> >>> - identifying the relevant user interface elements in conformance 
claims

I agree with this change

>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#IdentitySignal

It's easier to read the changed section in the diff you sent out. Which I 
have. I agree with these changes. 



public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 02/24/2010 02:17:33 PM:

> From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
> To: "Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)" 
<yngve@opera.com>
> Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "Web Security Context Working 
> Group WG" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 02/24/2010 02:17 PM
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-244: UI conformance criteria for TLS indicator 
> and Identity Signal [wsc-xit]
> Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
> 
> Changed as follows:
> 
> > To inform the user about the party responsible for that 
> information, the Issuer field's Organization attribute MUST be 
> displayed in the Identity Signal, or in secondary user interface 
> that is available through a consistent interaction with the Identity 
Signal.
> --
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 Feb 2010, at 20:11, Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera 
> Software ASA) wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 6.1.2
> > 
> > "The Issuer field's Organization attribute to inform the user 
> about the party responsible for that information MUST be displayed 
> in the Identity Signal, or in secondary user interface that is 
> available through a consistent interaction with the Identity Signal."
> > 
> > I think the first part of this could be improved, perhaps "that 
> informs the user", rather than "to inform the user"?
> > 
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:57:39 +0100, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> 
wrote:
> > 
> >> Some more discussion during today's below-critical-mass meeting 
> led to a slightly different approach for the text in 6.1.
> >> 
> >> I've updated the text there to work as follows:
> >> 
> >> - The identity signal is, by definition, in primary UI.  That 
> takes a lot of the complexity out of 6.1.1.
> >> - The issuer (which is really the one thing that isn't displayed 
> consistently) MUST be either in primary chrome, or in something 
> that's easy to get to through the identity signal.
> >> 
> >> Please review the text ASAP and indicate whether there are any 
> problems with it.
> >>   http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#IdentitySignal
> >> 
> >> We (Yngve, Mez, I) think that this corresponds well enough with 
> current implementations, but *please* verify.
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> --
> >> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 23 Feb 2010, at 00:24, Web Security Context Working Group 
> Issue Tracker wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> ISSUE-244: UI conformance criteria for TLS indicator and 
> Identity Signal [wsc-xit]
> >>> 
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/244
> >>> 
> >>> Raised by: Thomas Roessler
> >>> On product: wsc-xit
> >>> 
> >>> To clarify the identity signal and TLS indicator language, I 
propose:
> >>> 
> >>> - identifying the relevant user interface elements in conformance 
claims
> >>> - changing the consistency requirement to reach the identity 
> signal (XXIX and XXX) to SHOULD
> >>> 
> >>> (both of these changes are included with the current editor's draft)
> >>> 
> >>> We need to review whether XXVIII has sufficient implementation 
> support, given the choice of identity signal UI component made by 
> the various implementers.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Sincerely,
> > Yngve N. Pettersen
> > 
> > ********************************************************************
> > Senior Developer                     Email: yngve@opera.com
> > Opera Software ASA                   http://www.opera.com/
> > Phone:  +47 24 16 42 60              Fax:    +47 24 16 40 01
> > ********************************************************************
> > 
> 
>