Re: usecases comments Re: Comments on draft documents posted to the WSC wiki

Whoa... not ready for "consensus" changes on all of these yet. I haven't had
a chance yet to go through everyone's comments. I know year-end was crazy
for me, and I imagine that others had similar experiences, so I don't know
that it's really safe to assume that silence at the end of the year (when
people are leaving for holidays etc) implies consensus.

For instance, there was a change saying an attested certificate has been
validated rather than can be validated - that's not a minor re-wording, that
is a semantic change, and since we were talking about changes of security
levels on validation errors, etc, I need a minute to parse whether this
change is actually affecting anything else.

I would ask for a bit more time before we adopt all of these changes. I
agree that most are editorial, but I'm not sure I agree on *all* of them
being so.

-Ian

On Jan 2, 2008 8:50 AM, Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
wrote:

>
> Since this is about consensus on (purely) editorial changes to
> wsc-usecases, I am declaring that two weeks of silence, that included the
> holidays, is sufficient for these changes. Tyler, as editor, please make
> them. I'll create an action item for tracking purposes because, in the face
> of last call being over and no issues against wsc-usecases, we can finalize
> this document. I will put it on a meeting agenda for us to resolve to
> publish the note (or rather, technical report), when these updates have been
> made:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q75
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#tr-end
>
>           Mez
>
>
>
>
> From:"Mary Ellen Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>To:"Timothy
> Hahn" <Timothy_Hahn%IBMUS@notesdev.ibm.com<Timothy_Hahn%25IBMUS@notesdev.ibm.com>
> >Cc:public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Date:12/14/2007 11:30 AMSubject:usecases comments Re: Comments on draft
> documents posted to the WSC wiki
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> I find the following comments to be NOT editorial changes, requiring the
> creation of an Issue if you want them tracked, discussed, and put into the
> final version:
>
> Unintended Destination comment - please flesh it out to a full proposal.
>
> Your comment format irritatingly truncates the right hand side of the 6.5table, so any comments in there (and the one directly after) cannot be fully
> appreciated, or acted on.
>
> The "smartphone" insertion seems out of the blue.
>
> "composition from multiple items on the same host" does not seem like a
> straightforward re wording of the text removed. I can't tell myself if it's
> an accurate restatement.
>
> The data and jar uri comment seems misplaced, and I don't understand it.
>
> "HTTP header information" comment has no references.
>
> Ditto for "DNS lookup results".
>
> In this context, "installed extensions" seems like an oxymoron, since
> other items there have used "installed" to mean "pre installed with the
> browser".
>
> Any comments with a "?" need a concrete proposal.
>
>
> I find all OTHER comments to be editorial. The suggestion on a XSS
> reference can be satisfied with a link to Wikipedia's article on it. On
> those, I'm starting the "consensus" time clock. Silence for an extended
> period of time will imply it, at which point that will signal the decision
> to incorporate them.
>
>          Mez
>
>
> From:Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUSTo:<public-wsc-wg@w3.org>Date:11/28/2007
> 03:11 PMSubject:Comments on draft documents posted to the WSC wiki
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have read the latest draft documents and placed comments via attachments
> into the group's wiki.  See this page for links: *
> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/DocsRepository*<http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/DocsRepository>
>
> Regards,
> Tim Hahn
> IBM Distinguished Engineer
>
> Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
> Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
> phone: 919.224.1565     tie-line: 8/687.1565
> fax: 919.224.2530
>
>
>
>
>