W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Review of update to Widget Signature

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:37:46 -0400
Message-Id: <EBFB9EFF-B04D-40F1-A5A3-295AE8AE94C0@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Marcos

Thanks for taking the time to propose a revision to Widget Signature  
based on your experience working on the test cases.  This looks like a  
very good  improvement in readability and clarity of conformance  
requirements.

 From a technical point of view it looks to be fundamentally the same  
to me, with a couple of changes noted here, though I may have missed  
something in the large number of changes. Here are a few  questions:

1. You removed requirement that signature be at root of widget  
package? This seems an important requirement  here for knowing which  
signatures are valid  (even if in packaging and config)

2. The following signature validation rule in section 6 seems  
incorrect since it does not account for author signatures:

"A validator MUST ignore any file entry whose file name does not  
conform to the naming convention for a distributor signature."

Change to:

"A validator MUST ignore any file entry whose file name does not  
conform to the naming convention for an author or distributor  
signature."

3. The abstract was revised to generalize beyond widgets, which I  
don't understand given that the entire specification is widget  
specific. What did you have in mind.

> allow a packaged Web application such as widgets

4. Typo section 8,  in note: Signign

Regarding process, some of the changes and deletions remove material  
that was added through decision of the WG earlier - although to me it  
appears to be  an improvement. So we need WG to agree to accept  
changes.  Given that the conformance targets have been redefined, that  
normative language has been removed or changed, is another full Last  
Call (3 weeks) be required?  Maybe, but I'm not sure since apart from  
the questions above it looks like the same net effect on  
implementations.

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 12:38:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT