Re: ISSUE-186 (Petname option): Give petname as an option in identity signal [wsc-xit]

I don't currently use petnames either, but I don't think my own lack  
of experience with them precludes a SHOULD or even a carefully worded  
MUST.  They do have some empirical support.  What about:

    User agents which support petnames MUST display petnames as part  
of the identity signal.  User agents MAY indicate the lack of a  
petname as part of the identity signal as well.

To the best of my knowledge, we don't have language in the current  
document which requires (MUST) petname support in the first place, but  
I think a user agent that makes the choice to expose that  
functionality should not find it particularly onerous to incorporate  
it into identity UI; that's really the whole point.

As for the absence thing - I suspect that user agents will choose, for  
one thing, to only talk about petnames for SSL, since http sessions  
don't offer any assurance that you are visiting the petnamed site in  
the first place.  I think the MAY gives implementors flexibility  
around the issue, while at the same time calling attention to the fact  
that this is a thing worth considering.

Cheers,

Johnathan

On 7-Mar-08, at 2:18 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>
> On 2008-03-07 10:33:54 -0800, Ian Fette wrote:
>
>> Because I for one am never going to use petnames, and therefore  
>> don't want
>> to see Petname: none always showing.
>
>> If a user has defiend a petname for a site, then I'm fine with
>> language around should, but I don't want to see should without
>> the caveat. e.g. "If a user has defined a petname for a site,
>> that petname SHOULD be displayed as part of the identity signal"
>> or whatever. But the "If" is important.
>
> There are two questions here:
>
> - Should petnames, if present, be part of an identity signal?
> - Should the absence of petnames be signalled?
>
> I don't really have an opinion on the second one (though I'd note
> that at least some modern browsers indicate, e.g., whether the
> currently visited page is bookmarked -- that gets close), but I
> think we should make a much stronger statement than MAY about the
> first one.
>
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
>

---
Johnathan Nightingale
Human Shield
johnath@mozilla.com

Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 22:05:18 UTC