- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 18:55:46 +0200
- To: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
- Cc: Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com>, Web Security Context Working Group WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
On 2007-08-09 09:52:20 -0700, Ian Fette wrote: > One thing I worry about a lot of the proposals in the current > draft is that we are expecting browsers and other UAs to give up > a ton of screen real-estate. Browsers already take up a ton of > real-estate as it is, and if you put something in a browser, it's > almost impossible to take it out. We had this discussion back in > New York (march 06 or whatever it was). I'm extremely reluctant > to say that browsers SHOULD give up screen real-estate when we > have no data to say that it's going to solve the problem (or even > help in a meaningful way). As such, I would vote against a > proposal containing SHOULD, because I fear that it would make > people write off the whole document as unrealistic. And what > about a mobile browser? Do you think that on my 320x240 > resolution phone that a browser SHOULD take up 100x50 pixels to > display the subject, issuer, and a logo? I don't.... > OK, so maybe that was $.03, but I won't charge you the extra > penny ;-) Are you arguing secondary chrome, primary chrome, or both? Some of what you say sounds like it's focused on primary chrome only. -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 16:55:52 UTC