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

Re: ISSUE-28: \"available security information\"

From: Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 15:52:06 -0700
Message-Id: <962F38AA-7685-4AFA-B2BF-81FC86F76100@mozilla.com>
Cc: Web Security Context WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
To: Timothy Hahn <hahnt@us.ibm.com>
Echoing comments I've made on the calls, I am also a fan of this  
section.  Not only does it document the context in which  
recommendations were generated (Mez's point) but it is also a  
reasonably useful list to which to refer; at least for me.  I'm fine  
with changing the language though, so that we don't claim to be  
something we're not.

Cheers,

J

---
Johnathan Nightingale
Human Shield
johnath@mozilla.com



On 9-Apr-07, at 8:22 AM, Timothy Hahn wrote:

>
> +1 on keeping the section.
>
> I think we could come up with a better adjective than  
> "exhaustive".  Perhaps "well known" or "known" would be  
> sufficiently precise for now.
>
> Regards,
> Tim Hahn
> IBM Distinguished Engineer
>
> Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
> Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
> phone: 919.224.1565     tie-line: 8/687.1565
> fax: 919.224.2530
>
>
>
> "Mary Ellen Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
> Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
> 04/09/07 10:26 AM
>
> To
> Web Security Context WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
> cc
> Subject
> Re: ISSUE-28: \"available security information\"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > However, in its current state, I'm inclined to consider this  
> section neither
> > "exhaustive" (as the text claims it is), nor particularly useful.
>
> I disagree on the utility.
>
> It's good to see an overview of the available security information  
> that we've identified. Readers don't need to ask "have you thought  
> about using x?", since they can just check the list. And it has  
> useful references as well.
>
> I would argue against removing it, even in its current form.
>
>        Mez
>
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 22:52:15 GMT

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