W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Editorial problem in Section 4.2 of digital signature spec

From: Tom Gindin <tgindin@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:58:17 -0400
To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: dee3@torque.pothole.com, reagle@w3.org, dsolo@alum.mit.edu, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9C2A74E1.4880D4D2-ON85256A8B.0014DF50@pok.ibm.com>

     This may not be perfectly stated, but its intent is not that obscure.
A better way of putting it might be: "While we specify two SignatureMethod
algorithms, one mandatory and one optional to implement, user specified
algorithms may be used as SignatureMethod algorithms instead."

          Tom Gindin

Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>@w3.org on 07/15/2001
12:11:32 PM

Sent by:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org

To:   dee3@torque.pothole.co, reagle@w3.org, dsolo@alum.mit.edu
cc:   w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Subject:  Editorial problem in Section 4.2 of digital signature spec

In the first paragraph of Section 4.2 of the 4/19 draft, the following
sentence appears:

While we specify a mandatory and optional to implement SignatureMethod
algorithms, user specified algorithms are permitted.

It is not at all clear what this sentence means. It appears to be
grammatically incorrect and may be a typo. I cannot suggest how to fix it,
because I do not understand what it's trying to say, but I'm pretty sure it
is somehow wrong.

| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
|          The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001)           |
|              http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/              |
|   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/   |
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://www.cafeaulait.org/      |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/     |
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 00:07:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:36 UTC