- From: Priestley, Mark, VF-Group <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:54:04 +0200
- 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