W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dap-commits@w3.org > June 2010

2009/dap/policy-reqs Overview.html,1.36,1.37

From: Frederick Hirsch via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:47:12 +0000
To: public-dap-commits@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OOxdo-0002Sx-Cy@lionel-hutz.w3.org>
Update of /sources/public/2009/dap/policy-reqs
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv9438

Modified Files:
	Overview.html 
Log Message:
fix valiation issue


Index: Overview.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/2009/dap/policy-reqs/Overview.html,v
retrieving revision 1.36
retrieving revision 1.37
diff -u -d -r1.36 -r1.37
--- Overview.html	10 Jun 2010 04:34:41 -0000	1.36
+++ Overview.html	16 Jun 2010 18:47:10 -0000	1.37
@@ -81,7 +81,6 @@
           supported by the API framework and is supported by
           applications declaring needed access.
           </p>
-</li>
         </dd>
         <dt>Application</dt>
         <dd><p>An application is code  that may make use of DAP Device
@@ -166,7 +165,7 @@
     <h2>User Managed Access</h2>
     <p>This section outlines use cases and requirements to support
     user controlled access control.</p>
-<section>
+    <section>
       <h4>Use case PM1: user-controlled configuration</h4>
       <p>
         In this use-case:
@@ -200,8 +199,8 @@
         The configured policy, at any given time, may be stored locally on the device
         or may be stored remotely and be accessible via a network service, or both.
       </p>
-</section>
-<section>
+    </section>
+    <section>
       <h4>Use case PM2: user-delegated configuration</h4>
       <p>
         In this use-case:
@@ -235,8 +234,8 @@
         This use-case mirrors current practice with products such as virus scanners or
         other malware detectors.
       </p>
-</section>
-<section>
+    </section>
+    <section>
       <h4>Use case PI2: portability of user settings</h4>
       <p>
         A user may establish a policy configuration (through explicit configuration of
@@ -252,8 +251,8 @@
         an old device to a new device. This is relevant to Policy Management use cases
         PM1, PM2, PM3.
       </p>
-</section>
-<section>
+    </section>
+    <section>
       <h4>Prompts</h4>
         <p>
           Prompts should be eliminated whenever possible. Many prompts do not provide
@@ -356,44 +355,43 @@
           </li>
         </ul>
       </div>
-</section>
-      <section id='user-control-rqmts'>
-        <h3>User Control Requirements</h3>
-        <ul>
-           <li>The security framework MUST NOT require User Agents to present modal dialogs to prompt users for security
-            decisions, while the application is running.
-<ul><li>Note: modal dialogs may be required
-            for security prompts provided during application
-            installation or invocation.</li></ul>
-</li>
-          <li>The security framework SHOULD allow users to have control over general configuration of security
-            decisions</li>
-          <li>The security policy framework SHOULD make it possible to record
-            security configuration choices and interactive policy
-            decisions using the policy markup language format.</li>
-        </ul>
+    </section>
+    <section id='user-control-rqmts'>
+      <h3>User Control Requirements</h3>
+      <ul>
+        <li>The security framework MUST NOT require User Agents to present modal dialogs to prompt users for security
+          decisions, while the application is running.
+          <ul><li>Note: modal dialogs may be required
+              for security prompts provided during application
+              installation or invocation.</li></ul>
+        </li>
+        <li>The security framework SHOULD allow users to have control over general configuration of security
+          decisions</li>
+        <li>The security policy framework SHOULD make it possible to record
+          security configuration choices and interactive policy
+          decisions using the policy markup language format.</li>
+      </ul>
       <section id="portable-policy">
         <h2>Portable Policy</h2>
         <p>
-It should be possible for policy to be defined in a portable
-device-independent manner.
-</p>
-<ul>
+          It should be possible for policy to be defined in a portable
+          device-independent manner.
+        </p>
+        <ul>
           <li>Security Framework MUST be separable from policy
             statements. Note that this may be a consequence of declarative
             policy statements.</li>
-     <li>Access control policy MUST be stated in declarative manner.</li>
+          <li>Access control policy MUST be stated in declarative manner.</li>
           <li>The DAP policy language MUST define an XML syntax for
             that language.</li>
-     </ul>
+        </ul>
         <p>
-</p>
-</section>
-
+        </p>
+      </section>
       </section> <!-- user control rqmts -->
     </section> <!-- user control -->
 
-  <section>
+    <section>
     <h2>Enterprise Managed Access</h2>
     <p>This section outlines use cases and requirements to support
     enterprise or network operator managed access control.</p>
@@ -508,7 +506,7 @@
 			</p>
       </section> <!-- phishing -->
 </section> <!-- Abuse -->
-    </section> <!-- policy use cases -->
+</section> <!-- policy use cases -->
     <section> 
       <h2>Capabilities</h2>
         <p>
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 18:47:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 June 2010 18:47:17 GMT