W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > April 2007

RE: Comments RE: The Working draft - Section 7

From: Robert Yonaitis <ryonaitis@hisoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:00:35 -0400
Message-ID: <AAD1044DDFFCC84895A899314A72FB6CF918E9@be04.exg3.exghost.com>
To: "Mary Ellen Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
   Mez,

 

Thank you for the clarification on 7.2! I would think that from a
document perspective it would be a better document if it included what
you put in your response to me in some form. I know this is just a note
and maybe not in need of clarity however it could benefit from it! This
is of course just my two cents. 

 

Thank you for your response and review of my comments!

 

-Rob

 

________________________________

From: Mary Ellen Zurko [mailto:Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 8:59 AM
To: Robert Yonaitis
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comments RE: The Working draft - Section 7 

 


Hi Robert,

Actually, wsc-usecases is not for average users. Someone else asked
about that too, probably for similiar reasons. See: 

http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/track/issues/18


The part of 7.2 you quote refers to whether or not active content is
present in the HTML presented. Active content is code, as opposed to
data. Java and javascript are the two cannonical examples, but of
course, it's whatever the user agent treats as code. 

          Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect




"Robert Yonaitis" <ryonaitis@hisoftware.com> 

04/03/2007 08:51 PM

To

"Mary Ellen Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>,
<public-wsc-wg@w3.org>, <yonaif4a@erau.edu>

cc

 

Subject

Comments RE: The Working draft

 

 

 




Hello All:
 
Please accept my following comments to the following document:
http://www.w3.org/TR/wsc-usecases/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/wsc-usecases/> 
 
The following are offered as comments, questions and or suggestions.
 
 
 
7 Available security information comments
 

7.1 - 7.7, This whole section seems very light and could use some
expanded definitions. It seems as if we are enumerating types but not
defining them in any way. Average users reading this will be at a loss.
It seems that if one of the goals of our group is to educate, it may be
important to clearly define everything we can so as to be unambiguous.
For example

 7.2 presence of dynamic content. 

What does this refer to and will there be techniques of any type to
define this further? I would suggest clarification.

 

Thank you for your time, and I offer my time to work on this document in
any way that the group sees fit!

 

Cheers,

Robert B. Yonaitis

Founder and CTO
HiSoftware
http://www.hisoftware.com/

<https://exg3.exghost.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.hisoftwar

e.com/> 
603-496-7414



The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) is
privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s)
listed above.  Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of
this transmittal is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended
recipient.  If you have received this transmittal in error, please
notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the
transmittal.  Thank you.







The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above.  Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient.  If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the transmittal.  Thank you.
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 18:01:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 03:52:46 GMT