ISSUE-96

Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

wsc-xit

Raised by:

Thomas Roessler

Opened on:

2007-08-08

Description:

Should support for the display of logotypes be listed as a MAY or a SHOULD?

a) in primary chrome?
b) in secondary chrome?

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Meeting record: WSC WG f2f 2007-11-06 (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-11-21)
2. Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2007-11-21 (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2007-11-20)
3. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com on 2007-11-19)
4. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-19)
5. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-19)
6. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-19)
7. Draft minutes: WSC WG 2007-11-06 (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-11-17)
8. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from michael.versace@fstc.org on 2007-11-17)
9. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from dan.schutzer@fstc.org on 2007-11-17)
10. ISSUE-96 Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2007-11-16)
11. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2007-11-16)
12. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from johnath@mozilla.com on 2007-11-14)
13. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-14)
14. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-14)
15. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-14)
16. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-13)
17. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-13)
18. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from ifette@google.com on 2007-11-13)
19. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-13)
20. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-13)
21. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-13)
22. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from ifette@google.com on 2007-11-13)
23. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from johnath@mozilla.com on 2007-11-13)
24. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from ifette@google.com on 2007-11-13)
25. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from dan.schutzer@fstc.org on 2007-11-13)
26. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-13)
27. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-13)
28. RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-13)
29. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from ifette@google.com on 2007-11-12)
30. Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-12)
31. ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from ifette@google.com on 2007-11-09)
32. WSC Open Action Items (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2007-11-09)
33. Meeting record: WSC WG f2f 2007-10-03 (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-10-25)
34. Draft Minutes: WSC WG face-to-face 2007-10-03 (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-10-10)
35. Re: Draft Minutes: WSC WG face-to-face 2007-10-03 (from ifette@google.com on 2007-10-09)
36. RE: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from Audian.Paxson@iconix.com on 2007-08-10)
37. RE: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from Audian.Paxson@iconix.com on 2007-08-10)
38. RE: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com on 2007-08-10)
39. Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from ifette@google.com on 2007-08-10)
40. RE: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com on 2007-08-10)
41. Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from ifette@google.com on 2007-08-09)
42. Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from johnath@mozilla.com on 2007-08-09)
43. Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from ifette@google.com on 2007-08-09)
44. Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-08-09)
45. Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from ifette@google.com on 2007-08-09)
46. RE: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from dan.schutzer@fstc.org on 2007-08-09)
47. Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-08-09)
48. Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from johnath@mozilla.com on 2007-08-09)
49. updated editor's draft: IdentitySignal (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-08-08)
50. ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-08-08)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log