Re: wsc-xit: Please review for publication.

Are the "(normative)"'s in titles accurate and comprehensive? They seem 
almost random. For example, I checked 6.1.1, which doesn't have one on the 
title, but seems like it should be. Sure enough, the first comment is that 
it is normative. It's confusing the way it is; make them all title 
comments or all comments after the title. 

> - Lots of editorial notes (the ones in nasty green), pointing to
>   issues and to the Wiki.

I can't say that "to be written" is a useful or informative explanation of 
why 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 exist, but it's not reason to hold up the draft 
either. I had hoped a decent one liner would help reviewers understand 
that we were at least thinking there would be classes of both content and 
user agents, and not all recommendations would apply to all types. At 
least that's _my_ guess on why those sections exist. 

I specially like the "nasty" green in the "please refer" comments. It's 
good highlighting (for the fully sighted and color aware). 

The commentary on unresolved issues is really good everywhere. We need a 
way (in the next version) to have similiar useful pointers to resolved 
issues for reviewers, to minimize comments redundant with issues we've 
worked through. 

> 
> - New Overview and Status of this Document sections.
> 

"To complement the interaction and decision related parts of this 
specification, 8 Robustness addresses the question how the communication 
of context information needed to make decisions can be made more robust 
against attacks."
grammar - Shouldn't that be "addresses the question of how..."?

Otherwise, they look good. There were a couple places in the Overview that 
I'd like to make it "better", but I couldn't figure out immediately how, 
so that will have to wait til the future. 


> - Dropped in the Safe Web Form Editor.  (Tyler approved.)

I have a number of personal quibbles with the status of the proposal, but 
those are not pertinent to this review. 

Nice example formatting. 

"The user agent MUST offer distinct interactions through which (aa) the 
user can navigate to a known preferred search engine, and (bb) the user 
can enter a "petname" for the site they are interacting with."
I'm unfamiliar with the "double letter" sub bulleting. It threw me for a 
second. I'm more used to going to another numbering scheme, such as (i) 
and (ii). Not critical, but want to check to make sure it's something 
others are familiar with. 

In 7.3, "petname" is in a sense a forward reference to the definition in 
7.4. It would be useful if there was some way to signal that. 

> 
> - Dropped in the Page Security Score.

Ditto on the personal quibbles, but looks good in terms of going out for 
FPWD. 

        Mez