Re: GRDDL WD comments (security section, etc.)

On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:12 -0500, Murray Maloney wrote:
> Here are my collected comments on the GRDDL WD
> 	Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL)
> 	editor's draft $Date: 2007/02/21 16:25:45 $
> 	$Revision: 1.228 $

> I think that only one of my comments is substantial and it is identified in 
> HTTP Headers.
> I have taken the liberty to edit Jeremy's Security section. Feel free to 
> ignore my edits.
> In particular, I tried to reduce the use of "should" phrases and substitute 
> "are advised" phrases.
> I did this on the basis that one man's security risk is another man's 
> design feature.

The HTTP headers edit is overcome by events.

Murray applied his edits and sent me the result
(for reference: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:49:29 -0500)

I reviewed them and checked them in as follows...

Revision 1.229  2007/03/01 12:37:41  connolly
- security section wordsmithing by Murray
(following comments of Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:12:09 -0500)
but retaining "off-the-shelf" as per
jjc (in a messge that I can't seem to find now)

-- s/transform/transformation/

- in GRDDL-Aware Agents section:
-- add missing comma
-- replace unclear 'steps 4 and 5' with 'discovery by...'

- wordsmith 'no clear mechanism' para in intro

- in protocol trace section: s/appendix/example/

- 'identifiable' spelling fix

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 1 March 2007 13:45:52 UTC