- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:13:01 +0200
- To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
I will make the changes below and change the style sheet to uppercase rfc2119 terms. On Monday, April 27, 2009, Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> wrote: > I suggest the following > > remove from widgets signature: > http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#use > > "A user agent MUST prevent a widget from accessing the contents of a > digital signature document unless an access control mechanism > explicitly enables such access, e.g. via a an access control policy. > The definition of such a policy mechanism is out of scope of this > specification, but may be defined to allow access to all or parts of > the signature documents, or deny any such access." > > change packaging and config, > http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#digital-signatures > > replace 2nd paragraph which is currently > > "Where a user agent that implements this specification interacts with > implementations of other specifications, this user agent must deny > other implementations access to digital signature documents unless an > access control mechanism is in place to enable access according to > policy. The definition of such a policy mechanism is out of scope of > this specification, but may be defined to allow access to all or parts > of the signature documents, or deny any such access. An exception is > if a user agent that implements this specification also implements the > optional [Widgts-DigSig] specification, in which case the user agent > must make signature documents available to the implementation of the > [Widgets-DigSig]specification." > > with this > > "A user agent MUST prevent a widget from accessing the contents of a > digital signature document unless an access control mechanism > explicitly enables such access, e.g. via a an access control policy. > The definition of such a policy mechanism is out of scope of this > specification, but may be defined to allow access to all or parts of > the signature documents, or deny any such access. An exception is if a > user agent that implements this specification also implements the > optional [Widgts-DigSig] specification, in which case the user agent > must make signature documents available to the implementation of the > [Widgets-DigSig] specification." > > > this is to adopt Art's simplified proposal > > By the way I really think P&C should use uppercase MUSTs etc. > > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Nokia > > > > > -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 22:13:48 UTC