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

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.

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 2008-03-07 16:12:57 +0000, Web Security Context Working Group
> Issue Tracker wrote:
>
> > ISSUE-186 (Petname option): Give petname as an option in identity
> > signal [wsc-xit]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/
> >
> > Raised by: Mary Ellen Zurko
> > On product: wsc-xit
> >
> > I propose adding petname to the recommendations in 6.1.
> > Specifically, the petname definition from the following email:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Mar/0025.html
> >
> > with this normative text added to 6.1.2:
> >
> > Information displayed in the identity signal MAY include a
> > petname.
>
> Why only a MAY?  I actually agree that it's fundamentally a good
> idea, but would like to state that by saying that, therefore, it
> should be part of a standard user experience.  So, MUST or SHOULD.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
>
>