W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > December 2010

Re: ACTION-638: high level reorg suggestions

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:20:09 +0100
To: <cantor.2@osu.edu>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <64B155B9-A985-4BC4-AAC2-33477E0578F7@nokia.com>

odd, I thought I was looking at your changes, but perhaps they didn't get checked in. Thought I saw a commit message...

can you please check.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Dec 6, 2010, at 3:00 PM, ext Cantor, Scott E. wrote:

>> (A) I suggest we change the following paragraph in Section 1, Introduction,
> I thought I had altered that, I may have forgotten to. Yes, it's indicating the legacy material is in a separate spec, because originally that's what we had. Needs to be redone.
>> (B) I also think it might be helpful to remove some of the interleaving of the
>> modes  now that I see it in context.
> I would agree.
>> Add new section, "The Reference Element in 2.0 Mode", containing
>> * The "2.0 Mode" Transforms Processing Model
>> * The dsig2:Selection Element
>> * The dsig2:Verification element
>> * Subtrees with optional exclusions in 2.0 mode
>> * The URI Attribute for Selection in 2.0 mode
>> *  XPaths in 2.0 mode
> I've substantially altered the flow of that content and eliminated the latter two sections entirely, so this is not entirely applicable, but the general suggestion you're making is to move what I put in 7.6 back up into a new sub-section.
> My concern with this is that the 4th layer of sections are vary hard to see in context because of the font. My changes promoted them to layer 3.
>> I can help with this change if you want.
> I'm not enthusiastic about taking on another big revamp right this second, so if somebody else is willing to take a whack, I would prefer that. In the meantime, I'll try and get the TBD sections I left undone checked in tonight, and we can divvy up next steps tomorrow morning.
> But I think some of this depends on decisions about the way we cover Selection and Verification. Right now, they're done as dedicated elements, and I'm suggesting that for consistency we redo them as new "Algorithm" types, which means they'd end up largely down below in section 7.
> -- Scott
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 20:20:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:15 UTC