- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:56:15 +0100
- To: "Priestley, Mark, VF-Group" <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Mark, 2009/2/19 Priestley, Mark, VF-Group <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>: > Hi Art, > >>c. Action #275 - What is our lifecycle, revocation model?; Mark >> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/275 > > I think this action can be closed - I believe we have agreed that the > Widget 1.0: Digital Signatures spec will only cover the format, > generation and processing of a digital signatures. Any link to security > policy, and therefore lifecycle/revocation models, will now be out of > scope (at least for the current specs - might need to be discussed again > in the context of the security spec). > >>d. Action #276 - Submit a short set of requirements re >>extended permissions and parameters and a proposal to address >>those requirements (to public-webapps); Mark >> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/276 > > I believe this action can also be closed. The initial discussion was > around whether the feature element was good enough to represent the > types of security sensitive operation that a widget could be expected to > carry out. After further discussion, we think that the feature element > is good enough - at least in 1.0. This is great to hear. However, if you have any requirements from 2.0, please let us know or please add them to the wiki: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets2_UC%26R Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Sunday, 22 February 2009 17:57:02 UTC