- From: Adam Powers <adam@fidoalliance.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 18:24:16 -0700
- To: Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com>, W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACu+4cuC73GM-HPxpg5fHEV3KXe4QPGC2YUfRtJTPXNsbLVbLg@mail.gmail.com>
Sounds like a great suggestion, thanks. On May 21, 2016 at 2:20:12 PM, Vijay Bharadwaj (vijaybh@microsoft.com) wrote: > I’m not sure that it’s efficient to file new issues for each comment, and > a lot of these are things where I think the right fix would be somewhere > other than the place you get confused – essentially the text should have > led in better to the statement that actually tripped you up. > > > > How about we do this in a more iterative way? I can create a branch next > week and maybe we can do some back-and-forth editing to see if we can > refine the text. WDYT? > > > > *From:* Adam Powers [mailto:adam@fidoalliance.org] > *Sent:* Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:42 AM > *To:* W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org> > *Subject:* Notes from WebAuthn Review > > > > Hi all, > > > > During the face to face in Berlin I had raised my hand to read through the > review draft of the spec and provide comments. I tried to approach this as > if I were a first-time reader and think about what things might trip up an > implementer. > > > > Attached are my annotations in PDF — sorry for the weird format, but I did > my reading / reviewing in Evernote while sitting on a plane. > > > > Let me know if I should drop these into a GitHub issue or if there’s some > better way to provide feedback. > > > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 22 May 2016 01:24:44 UTC