Initial feedback on Auto Updates document

I have some comments on the "Auto Updates 1.0" W3 Editor's draft,
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/auto-updates/Overview.src.html

I understand that this is not in a public draft state yet but would
like to provide some early feedback on the document.

1.  Overall the doucment shows a lot of promise. I would very much
like to see a document along these lines but some thought needs to be
given as to how one can provide multiple URLs for a resource,
particularly when the resource is available via multiple, different,
transport protocols.

2.  I'd like to suggest that section Introduction.6 is replaced with
the following text:

If the update details contained a hash element with a valid hash
value, then the UA can derive the hash value for the updated resource
using the method specified by the hash element's type attribute
(possible types are "SHA-1" or "MD5"). If the attribute is missing,
the following table is used to determine the method:

value is 160 bits long: method is "SHA-1"
value is 128 bits long: method is "MD5"
any other length: the element is in error.  Implicitly this means the
entire document is in error (as the specification is currently
defined)

If the method has been determined, the UA then performs a hash check.
If the values don't match, the UA may ask the the end-user how to
proceed (ie. discard the update resource or try again?)

3.  Capitalisation of element names should be consistent with other
Widgets documents.  Some documents currently seem to use lowercase
while others use UpperCamelCase or Initialcase.  As mentioned in a
previous mail, the name and content of the method/type attribute of
the hash element should be consistent with the Algorithm attribute of
the DigestMethod and SignatureMethod elements from the Widgits-DigSig
specification.

Regards,
-- 
Michael

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 04:12:36 UTC