Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
I could get more into details here, but I spare you that ;-). But the
obvious is, that the very operators of the sites in question have the
solution to the problem much closer at hand than anybody else!
Really? Perhaps you could suggest it, if it's so easy.
Gervase Markham wrote:
Really? Perhaps you could suggest it, if it's so easy.
No problem! We'd be glad to provide a workable and effective solution,
should any web site operator contact us and request it. However I doubt
that we are that much smarter than the developers of their sites
Michael Lefevre wrote:
No, but that would also help. If those 50 users recognise the green bar is
missing for Paypal, that's good. If 30 of them do their banking with
Anybank, who don't get EV, and Anybank says it's ok to use our site
without the green bar, then maybe next time they are at
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
But the core question remains: Why should Mozilla take responsibility of
a business which does not even belong to Mozilla?!!!
Because part of our business is to take people where they want to go,
but also keep them away from where they should not be - even if
Hi Dan,
Dan Veditz wrote:
It's certainly not going to be a green bar, but if we can come up with
something decent isn't it worth being able to tell the difference between
we know these identities were validated to a certain standard vs. these
identities may or may not have been validated to
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
My question to your suggestion is, if we can't come up with something,
that would tell the user _any_ difference between _any_ certificate.
Which means, to display the user the most important information in a
convenient way, which could be perhaps the subject
On 2007-02-05, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Throw all the information at the user and let them make up their own
mind is not going to be our UI strategy. So you may as well stop
lobbying for it to be. :-|
Seems to me that your own point extends to EV though. I can't see
Nelson B wrote:
These proposals are all now about a year old. They were barred from
consideration for FF2. Let's hope they will be considered for FF3.
Redesigning the security UI is a P1 for Firefox 3. Redoing the errors was
explicitly added as a line item when we went over the plan this
Heikki Toivonen wrote:
Nelson B wrote:
beltzner wrote:
On 2/1/07, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to my knowledge. Such a thing would be fantastic!
What I was able to offer the W3C was:
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/NoteMozillaCertificateValidationErrors
But if someone
Nelson B wrote:
beltzner wrote:
On 2/1/07, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to my knowledge. Such a thing would be fantastic!
What I was able to offer the W3C was:
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/NoteMozillaCertificateValidationErrors
But if someone could help me construct the
On 2/1/07, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to my knowledge. Such a thing would be fantastic!
What I was able to offer the W3C was:
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/NoteMozillaCertificateValidationErrors
But if someone could help me construct the workflow, that would be
great. Any
11 matches
Mail list logo
