W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-usable-authentication@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [fwd] Re: Web Security Context: User Interface Guidelines (from: timeless@gmail.com) ( LC-2059)

From: <mzurko@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:03:03 +0000
To: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Cc: public-usable-authentication@w3.org,timeless@gmail.com
Message-Id: <E1LLNZP-0000Fi-GV@farnsworth.w3.org>

 Dear timeless ,

The Web Security Context Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent
[1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Web Security Context: User
Interface Guidelines published on 24 Jul 2008. Thank you for having taken
the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-usable-authentication@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 26
January 2009. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a
specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If
such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to
raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director
during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C
Recommendation Track.


For the Web Security Context Working Group,
Thomas Roessler
W3C Staff Contact

 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wsc-ui-20080724/


Your comment on :
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wsc-ui-20080724/
> initial spell checking after visual inspection flagged a word is done
> by loading the text into data:text/html,<textarea rows=60 cols=85> in
> Firefox 3.0.1 (en-US) and just looking for red squiggles.
> >     6.1 Identity and Trust Anchor Signalling
> >     6.4 Error handling and signalling
> google says the web favors signaling 3:1 (Firefox says signalling
> isn't a word{).
> Wikipedia says:
>   signalling (UK spelling) or signaling (US spelling) has the
> following meanings:
> > [WSC-USECASES] documents the use cases and assumptions that underly
> this specification.
> underlie or underlay
> > Mike Beltzner, Joe Steele,Jan Vidar Krey, Maritza Johnson, Rachna
> Dhamija and Dan Schutzer.
> space missing before "Jan"
> > It has also benefitted from general public and working group
> commentary on earlier drafts.
> benefited
> > This specification also addresses products that might incporate
> changes to a web
> incorporate
> > acceptance was caused through a user interaction that happens whlie
> the user is
> while
> > those roots embody augmented assurance and can therefore be treated
> more favourably
> > both display the "padlock" security indicator, and a possible
> "favorite icon"
> As an American, I'd expect favorably....
> > The identity of the top level resource vouches for the content of all
> dependant
> dependent
> =
> > This specification addresses Web user agents as one class of
> product.
> typically I expect "class of thing_s_" do you mean "a product class"?`
> >    3. What broadly accepted practices are considered sufficient for a
> trust anchor to be deemed augmented assurance qualified.
> > Web user agents MUST establish that a trust anchor is [Definition:
> AA-qualified ]
> use "augmented assurance qualified" or "aa-qualified" but not both :)

Working Group Resolution (LC-2059):
Thank you. The changes you suggest have been made in the current editors

Received on Friday, 9 January 2009 20:03:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:16 UTC