- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 19:09:15 +0000
- To: <mnystrom@microsoft.com>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Magnus thanks for the review. I've updated encryption 1.1 for this CR pass (as well as editors draft). Yes we want both to be consistent. I suspect that we will have another short round on XML Signature 1.1 soon and will update it then. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:57 PM, ext Magnus Nystrom wrote: > Docs look OK to me. > > Regarding linking to the XML Enc explain doc from XML Enc 1.1 - Would not you then also want the XML DSig 1.1 to link to its explain doc (or if that's too late, do you want that asymmetry between XML Dsig 1.1 and XML Enc 1.1)? > > -- Magnus > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 8:50 AM >> To: public-xmlsec@w3.org >> Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com >> Subject: Functional explanation of changes to XML Signature 1.1 and XML >> Encryption 1.1 - please review >> >> I have created two new draft change documents that I think should make it >> clearer to developers what the changes are in XML Signature 1.1 and XML >> Encryption 1.1. >> >> XML Signature 1.1 developer explain: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/developer- >> explain.html >> >> XML Encryption 1.1 developer explain: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmlenc-core-11/developer- >> explain.html >> >> These documents only list functional changes, organized by topic, and do not >> include editorial changes. I think will be clearer to developers and can also >> help with our interop by providing a very brief checklist of new functionality. >> >> Please review, in case there is something missing or requiring correction. >> >> I think it would make sense for the XML Encryption 1.1 CR to link to this >> explanation document. What do you think? >> >> Thanks >> >> regards, Frederick >> >> Frederick Hirsch >> Nokia >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:09:53 UTC