Re: ACTION-430: Minor editorials

>   6th para+onwards: AAC abbreviation used only once 
>     ..."augmented assurance cert">> "AAC" everywhere? 

Please no. Expand the AAC if it's only one place. Think of the poor 
readers. 

>   8th para onwards: "user agent" >> "Web user agents" 

I'm personally good with using "user agent" as a short form of "web user 
agent". Though I'd also be good with not doing it. 

>   1st para: SSC abbreviation introduced but never used 
>             "self-signed cert" >> "SSC" everywhere? 

Ditto on the "please no". 

>   3rd para: "advanced user" has not been defined before 
>      ... how can that be normative? 

It's meant to be an explanation of intent and level of usability. It's 
meant to contrast with a more average user. I'd say if even "one of us" 
couldn't find this, then it would fail it's usability test. 

>   1st&2nd paras: "extended validation certs" >> "AACs"? 

More "please no". 

Otherwise, I agree that all else is editorial (and wow on that first one; 
how long would we have gone on with that? :-). Anil, please make the 
changes. 

If you want to pursue any of the above, say a bit more on why. 

          Mez



public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 05/13/2008 08:06:46 AM:

> [para = paragraph] 
> * There are two Ack sections: section 2 & section 10
>   Also, the list of acknowledged folks is not the same. 
> * Section 4.2.1 
>   2nd para: twice the word "... are are available ..." 
> * Section 5.1.1 
>   4th para: two typos "certiicates" & "certifiate" 
>   5th para: typo "whlie" 
> * Section 5.1.2 
>   2nd para: typo "implementers" >> "implementors" 
>   6th para+onwards: AAC abbreviation used only once 
>     ..."augmented assurance cert">> "AAC" everywhere? 
>   8th para onwards: "user agent" >> "Web user agents" 
> * Section 5.1.5 
>   1st para: SSC abbreviation introduced but never used 
>             "self-signed cert" >> "SSC" everywhere? 
>   1st para: "trust root" >> "trust anchor" 
>   2nd para onwards: "untrusted root" >> "untrusted anchor"? 
>   2nd para last line": "different certificate" "different SSC" 
>   Last para: "If a client..." >> "If a Web user agent..." 
>   Last line: "client also have..." >> "user agent also has..." 
> * Section 5.1.6 
>   3rd para:"Presentation of a petname MUST support renaming..">> 
>   ..."Management of a petname MUST support presentation, renaming.." 
>   5th para onwards: "web user agent" >> "Web user agent" 
>   5th para last line:"bookmark presentation">>"bookmark management" 
> * Section 5.5.1 
>   3rd para: "trusted root certificate">>"trusted anchor" 
>   6th para: "secondary chrome">>"secondary user interface" 
>   7-8th paras: twice "HTTP connection" >> "HTTP transaction" 
> * Section 5.5.2 
>   1st para onwards: "User agents" >> "Web user agents" 
> * Section 6.1.2 
>   Para after bulleted list: "augmented assurance certificate" 
>   ... is underlined here whereas sometimes is not 
> * Section 6.2 
>   2nd para onwards: "primary and secondary chrome" >> 
>     .... "primary and secondary user interface" 
>   Last para: both "Cookies" and "cookies" capitals? 
> * Section 6.4.1 
>   1st & 2nd paras: "primary chrome" >> "primary user interface" 
>   3rd para: "advanced user" has not been defined before 
>      ... how can that be normative? 
> * Section 6.4.2 
>   1st para: "the browser cannot.." >> "the Web user agent cannot.." 
>   2nd para: "primary chrome" >> "primary user interface" 
> * Section 7.1 
>   1st para: "security critical information" >> 
>      ...>>  "security context information" 
> * Section 7.1.1 
>   1st para: typo "Emporer's" >> "Emperor's" 
> * Section 7.2 
>   Last para: " Web User Agents" >> "Web user agents" 
> * Section 9.1 
>   1st&2nd paras: "extended validation certs" >> "AACs"? 
>   2nd para: "authenticated DNS records" 
>   .... is a reference to DNSSEC [RFC3008] missing? 
> * Section 11 
>   Following references are not referred in the document 
>   ECRYPT2006, NESSIE, RFC2616 (HTTP), RFC4254 (SSH), 
>   RSA-SIZES, WHALENVIDENCE, XIA