See also: IRC log
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2009/06/17-wsc-minutes.html
Mez: Minutes approved
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/actions/pendingreview
Mez: No actions pending review
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/actions/open
Mez: overdue actions, several, most people missing, Joe's is planned
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/open
Mez: No open issues
<Mez> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2009May/0020.html
Mez: < reviewing last meeting's minutes>
<Mez> Whether the user has visited the site in the past with this instance of the user agent
<Mez> Whether the user currently has stored credentials for this site in this instance of the user agent
Ian: What does "instance" mean? E.g in a multi process environment
Mez: Does "this user instance" work?
Ian: Not sure
Yngve: This "browser profile"?
<Mez> Whether this browser profile has visited the site in the past
<steele> +1
<Mez> Whether the user has visited this site with this browser profile
joe: Have concern with "profile" is not defined anywhere, is "user" sufficient?
<Mez> a user profile is a representation of a user's saved state
Ian: "User's saved state"; users can have multiple profiles
jvkrey: Why specify so precisely? Practically we can't anticipate what a user have done in another profile. Just makes it complicated
<Mez> Whether the user has visited the site in the past
<Mez> Whether the user has stored credentials for this site
Mez: agree philosophically, but...
Ian: was satisfied with original text
Mez: Can point to this session,
implementation notes will also help
... <Auction > Going with old text
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#error-warning
<Mez> These warnings SHOULD be used if the likelihood of danger is present, but
<Mez> cannot be confirmed.
Mez: next comment
<Weighing SHOULD vs. MAY>
Ian: are WARNING and DANGER mutually exclusive? Could one argue that their DANGER ui also meets the criteria for WARNING?
Ian: alternately, could we say "SHOULD do WARNING or higher"
Mez: Think reviewer is writing
about "really close" to determining danger
... But think current language handles that case
<steele> thinking
Mez: Looking at next comment, about definintion of Warning vs. Danger
Mez: warnings offer options, danger does not
ian: Chrome offers next action, but for danger that may be "close tab", "leave page" etc.
Mez: Can see the reviewer's point, but hard pressed to offer good changes
<steele> I think that 6.4.2 is correct -- unless the browser has 100% knowledge of danger -- SHOULD display a WARNING/CAUTION message
Mex: XMLHTTP reqeuest comment
<steele> so we should point the the reviewer to this discussion
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#dynamic-content
<steele> and better define the differences betwene DANGER and WARNING perhaps
Mez: Which error situation?
Joe: Dynamic content changed security level of document
<Mez> this specification permits either handling the error situation described above as a
Mez: "Any error" may be to broad. Change to "Errors described above"?
<steele> +1
Mez: <auction> accepted
<Mez> ACTION: anil to change 8.7 text to above (inculde "described above") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-wsc-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-612 - Change 8.7 text to above (inculde "described above") [on Anil Saldhana - due 2009-07-01].
<Mez> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2009May/0023.html
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#Overview
Mez: 1.p2
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#IdentitySignal
Joe: Question about what identifity information/signal is
<Mez> this specification includes recommendations on the presentation of identity information by Web user agents [ref 6.1]
Mez: <auction> approved
<Mez> ACTION: anil to ref 6.1 in 2nd paragraph of overview as described above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-wsc-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-613 - Ref 6.1 in 2nd paragraph of overview as described above [on Anil Saldhana - due 2009-07-01].
Mez: 1.p3
<Mez> change 2nd sentence to
<Mez> This document is intended to provide user interface guidelines. Most sections
Mez: <another quick auction>
<Mez> ACTION: anil to change p3 to separate sentences as above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-wsc-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-614 - Change p3 to separate sentences as above [on Anil Saldhana - due 2009-07-01].
Mez: 4.2: Suggests keeping current language
Joe: Suggest "Identity information" is information used in the "identity signal"
Mez: Asks Joe to make proposal
<steele> how about: "Definition: Identity information is information about the web site which is used to present the identity signal"
<steele> actually "web site" should be "web page"
<Mez> position it right after web page
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#IdentitySignal
<steele> go back to my original text
<Mez> stick with web site as joe typed in originally
<discussion about web site vs web page, ending up on web site>
Mez: <Auction> approved
<Mez> ACTION: anil to add idenitty information definition to 4.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-wsc-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-615 - Add idenitty information definition to 4.2 [on Anil Saldhana - due 2009-07-01].
Mez: 5.1.1
Joe: <Drops it>
Mez: 5.1.2
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#sec-evcert
Mez: Do we have a reference to Augmented assurance qualified?
Joe: 3.4?
Mez: Remove defintion, have reference to 5.2?
Joe: Ok
<Mez> remove the notion that "augmented assurance qualified" is a definition, and have 3.4 reference section 5.1.2 instead of the "definition"
Mez: <auction> approved
<Mez> ACTION: anil to change 5.12 and 3.4 appropriately as above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-wsc-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-616 - Change 5.12 and 3.4 appropriately as above [on Anil Saldhana - due 2009-07-01].
<steele> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#sec-interactively
Mez: 5.3
... where is interactive acceptance mentioned?
Joe: Unsure about difference
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#def-pinned-cert
<discussion about pinning and acceptace>
Mez: Think we do not communicate
the concept well enough
... Let's try try to work up a new phrasing next meeting
... Hope next time we finish comments and can then ask if we
are ready to go to Candidate Recommandation