W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: minor comments for WD-xmldsig-core-20001012

From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:01:16 -0700
Message-Id: <p05001903b613f560b9d9@[204.210.33.45]>
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@MIT.EDU>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, "Donald Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>
Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:

[snip]

>  > 7.0 last par.
>  > Normalized Form C -> Normalization Form C
>
>  I believe it is Normalized Form C.
>  http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr15/tr15-18.html

If you search that page for "Normalization Form C" you'll get about
19 hits (and zero for "Normalized Form C").

>  > In References, all the RFCs could be listed the same way. I don't
>  > know the preferred way yet, and used commas and the space between
>  > RFC and 2119 in this example: RFC 2119, Key words for use in RFCs to
>  > Indicate Requirement Levels, S. Bradner, March 1997.
>
>  Could you provide a citation that this is the proper way? Regardless, Don
>  did the RFCs and I think they are consistent amongst themselves, though
>  not with other references.

As I mentioned I don't know the preferred way yet. It would be nice
if the spacing (RFC 2119 <-> RFC2119) and punctuation matched but this
is not a big deal.

Thank you for the very prompt response.

-- 
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Susan Lesch, Technical Editor
tel:+1.858.483.4819
mailto:lesch@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2000 21:02:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:11 GMT