Re: ISSUE-42: Re: 3.2 Non-HTTP Web interactions (public comment)

I agree there's some redundancy which could be pared, but disagree it 
should only appear in one place, in part because of the amount of energy 
we spent grappling with it. I propose we remove this part of 4.1:

however, the Working Group does not consider recommendations that are 
specific to such protocols as a Goal.

And replace it with a reference to 3.2. 

I also propose we add a bit of header text to level set on the purpose of 
section 4 (since I think our silence on some of them makes it a bit harder 
for the more casual reader to rapidly get their head around). I propose:

This section outlines the range of work items that are within the scope of 
the working group, as initially set up by the group's charter. This 
section is further refined by the goals and non goals sections, which 
specify which parts of the scope the group will concentrate its resources 
on, and which parts it will not. 

          Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect




Web Security Context Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
04/15/2007 10:56 AM
Please respond to
Web Security Context WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>


To
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
cc

Subject
ISSUE-42: Re: 3.2 Non-HTTP Web interactions (public comment)








ISSUE-42: Re: 3.2 Non-HTTP Web interactions (public comment)

http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/track/issues/42

Raised by: Bill Doyle
On product: Note: use cases etc.

>From public comments
raised by: Al Gilman Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-usable-
authentication/2007Apr/0000.html

Re: 3.2 Non-HTTP Web interactions 
Drop this sub-section.  4.1 says it better and says everything you need to 

say.  Less is more.