W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms-ws@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:37:06 -0400
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
Message-Id: <01082016370601.21596@policy>
On Monday 20 August 2001 15:46, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> One nit though, does this mean that if we say 'support for SPKI is
> optional' then someone has to do it.

In the general case I'd say so. Sometimes, in a rare, minor case, one might 
fudge it. We discussed this in xmldsig with PGPData and SPKIData and fudged 
because of the way it evolved (believing this was demonstrating syntactic 
extensibility not optional functionality), but I'm a big fan of as little as 
optionality as possible -- except for syntactic extensibility.

> I have no problems putting an RF statement in the charter, but
> I am not going to draft it. Does the W3C have an RF statement
> from elsewhere that we can plug in?

It's already in there (or at least the copy I have second paragraph of "IPR 
Disclosure."), as borrowed from the Encryption Charter -- maybe I'm 
misunderstanding.

> OK. Frontpage is suggesting lassoing rather than liasoning but
> I'll stick with your version.

Yea, I knew that was wrong but couldn't get a better suggestion either, but 
Don found the right word!
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 16:36:39 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:51:38 EDT