W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31

From: Priestley, Mark, VF-Group <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:54:04 +0200
Message-ID: <0BE18111593D8A419BE79891F6C4690902C94FF6@EITO-MBX01.internal.vodafone.com>
To: <timeless@gmail.com>
Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-webapps" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Thanks for the review of my review

Replies inline 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: timeless.bmo1@gmail.com [mailto:timeless.bmo1@gmail.com] 
>On Behalf Of timeless
>Sent: 07 April 2009 08:01
>To: Priestley, Mark, VF-Group
>Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps
>Subject: Re: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital 
>Signatures spec published on March 31
>Mark Priestley wrote:
>> Change to:
>> "Thus in the case that one or more distributor signatures were
>surely you mean 'more than one'

That would be more accurate, yes :)

>> validated, the highest numbered distributor signature would be 
>> validated first."
>do you really mean 'were validated', or do you mean 'are 
>available for validation'?

I really mean processed as validated implies success. Suggest to use
processed instead.

>> "Implementations MUST be prepared to accept X.509 v3 certificates 
>> [RFC5280]."
>> Can we say "User agents" rather than implementations
>A validator is an implementation, but not a useragent.

Hmm, isn't a User Agent (as defined in the specification) something that
implements the specification?  

Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 08:54:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:53 UTC