Re: [widgets] Dig Sig Spec ready for pub

Editorial comments, section 9 #4 typo "Optionaly", also  formatting in  section 9 item 3 number 7.

You might want dates for the SIgnature 1.1 and Signature Properties References?

Relying on XML Signature 1.1 for normative algorithm requirements is sensible in my personal opinion.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On May 23, 2011, at 6:46 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> Hi,
> I would like to republish the Widgets Dig Sig specification as LC (in preparation for moving it to PR):
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
> 
> I have also recreated the test suite to match the new specification:
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/test-suite/
> 
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
> 

Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 12:28:36 UTC