W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [widgets] new digsig draft

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:35:09 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670903251635q1c341e1g4c8dad8c6e2192f2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, otsi-arch-sec@omtplists.org
Hi Frederick,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Frederick Hirsch
<frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> Marcos
>
> Thanks for taking this pass.
>
>  I note a number of editorial corrections that I believe should be made
> before publishing:
>
> 1. Introduction should not have normative statements, and these replicate
> material later in the document, so change "MAY" to "can" in 2 places.
>
> 2. Section 4, #4, change "must" to "MUST"

fixed

> 3. Section 4, #6, change "Security" to "security"

fixed

> 4. Section 5.3.1, include blank line between bullet with DIGIT and next
> bullet

fixed

> 5. Section 6, replace ".." with "." in editorial note

fixed

> 6. Section 6.1, change "DSAwithSHA" to "DSAwithSHA1"

fixed

> 7. Section 7.2, change link to be from "signature file", it is currently
> broken

seemed ok? replaced it anyway.

> 8. End of section 8, remove example from sentence, change "For example,
> end-users"  to "End-users" and combine with previous paragraph.

Done.

> 9. Add note to  [XMLDSIG-Properties] reference as follows (at end of
> reference entry):
>
> Note, section 9 includes additions made in the XML Security WG to the XML
> Signature Properties editors draft (subsequent to First Public Working
> Draft) that are used in this specification.

Done.

> ---
>
> I also suggest you make sure that all changes in the working draft are also
> reflected in what is checked into the Editors draft in CVS so we can make
> changes as needed without losing these latest changes for the working draft
> (the only difference need be the setting as editors vs working draft I
> think).

Done.

> I also notice on a substantive level that you changed the namespace. Was the
> reason to match a pre-existing choice for the Packaging and Configuration?
> Is this an item for discussion?

Yes, I did that today but never got around to sending out an email
about it. Sorry. The change was to put it inline with P&C. Do you see
any issues arising from the new NS? should I change it back? I'm of
the position that NSs should not be dated because changing NS and,
hence semantics, for elements in the future is probably a bad idea.

> The other changes looked good, thanks for improving the draft.

My pleasure! Thanks for doing all the hard work and actual thinking! :)

Kind regards,
Marcos

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 23:36:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT