- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:21:44 +0200
- To: michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com
- Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org, Mary Ellen Zurko <mzurko@us.ibm.com>
On 2007-10-11 10:07:32 -0500, michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com wrote: > This issue confuses me. I believe we did resolve this in Austin. > We voted on Wednesday morning to adopt the normative language MEZ > provided (after some tweaks) but not to mandate a specific > formula. The example formula that I provided can be discarded, > or placed in a non-normative annex if it has some historical or > contextual value. We agreed that the material discussed in Austin be included into the first public working draft. We did not close any and all discussion about it going forward. ISSUE-129 serves to capture the question moving ahead. (At least that's my understanding of where we are; I'd like to hear from Mez if that's wrong.) The material is in the current editor's draft: Web Security Context: Experience, Indicators, and Trust Editor's Draft $Date: 2007/10/11 14:57:46 $ http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#page-score ... along with a link to this issue, and a fix of wording for the partial order. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 15:21:58 UTC