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

Re: [widgets] new digsig draft

From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:20:58 -0400
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Message-Id: <C236E56D-18AA-4EEC-904B-BC5F2ADB5C36@nokia.com>
To: "marcosc@opera.com" <marcosc@opera.com>
Marcos

I checked in another revision to fix the broken link in 7. 2 (last  
sentence included s in span) and to fix various validation errors.

  The latest revision looks ok to me now, version 1.85 of  
Overview.src.html, version 1.93 of Overview.html

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Mar 25, 2009, at 7:35 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 26 March 2009 12:22:34 GMT

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