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:
- Meeting record: WSC WG f2f 2007-11-06 (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-11-21)
- Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2007-11-21 (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2007-11-20)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com on 2007-11-19)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-19)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-19)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-19)
- Draft minutes: WSC WG 2007-11-06 (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-11-17)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from michael.versace@fstc.org on 2007-11-17)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from dan.schutzer@fstc.org on 2007-11-17)
- ISSUE-96 Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2007-11-16)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2007-11-16)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from johnath@mozilla.com on 2007-11-14)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-14)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-14)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-14)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-13)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-13)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from ifette@google.com on 2007-11-13)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-13)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-13)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-13)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from ifette@google.com on 2007-11-13)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from johnath@mozilla.com on 2007-11-13)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from ifette@google.com on 2007-11-13)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from dan.schutzer@fstc.org on 2007-11-13)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-13)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-13)
- RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from pbaker@verisign.com on 2007-11-13)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from ifette@google.com on 2007-11-12)
- Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from egelman@cs.cmu.edu on 2007-11-12)
- ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion (from ifette@google.com on 2007-11-09)
- WSC Open Action Items (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2007-11-09)
- Meeting record: WSC WG f2f 2007-10-03 (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-10-25)
- Draft Minutes: WSC WG face-to-face 2007-10-03 (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-10-10)
- Re: Draft Minutes: WSC WG face-to-face 2007-10-03 (from ifette@google.com on 2007-10-09)
- RE: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from Audian.Paxson@iconix.com on 2007-08-10)
- RE: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from Audian.Paxson@iconix.com on 2007-08-10)
- RE: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com on 2007-08-10)
- Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from ifette@google.com on 2007-08-10)
- RE: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com on 2007-08-10)
- Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from ifette@google.com on 2007-08-09)
- Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from johnath@mozilla.com on 2007-08-09)
- Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from ifette@google.com on 2007-08-09)
- Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-08-09)
- Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from ifette@google.com on 2007-08-09)
- RE: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from dan.schutzer@fstc.org on 2007-08-09)
- Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-08-09)
- Re: ISSUE-96: Should support for logotypes be a SHOULD or a MAY? [Techniques] (from johnath@mozilla.com on 2007-08-09)
- updated editor's draft: IdentitySignal (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-08-08)
- 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