- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:03:13 +0000
- To: <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
I have created diff's for all the documents both Recommendation track and Notes as listed in the 1.1 section of the roadmap. WIll do the 2.0 specs in a bit. Also added links to errata documents that I just created for the 1.1 Recommendations. Fixed a bug in the Signature Functional Explanation. For the recommendations, the redline from the previous rec is not very useful due to the number of changes - the linked functional explanation is probably more useful. Did not update the Algorithms Cross reference doc as I suggested earlier, as I don't think those changes are useful at this point. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Apr 9, 2013, at 7:56 AM, ext Innovimax W3C wrote: > Hi Frederick, > > Is there a way to see the diff with previous documents ? > > Thanks > > Mohamed > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:42 PM, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote: >> I have been preparing the 1.1 Recommendations and associated Notes to publish this Thursday, assuming W3C Director approval. In conjunction with this I have also prepared to publish the 2.0 specifications as Working Group Notes. >> >> I need your help to check for any errors, especially with examples, formatting, acknowledgements and the content of the abstracts and status sections. >> >> I have completed validation, link, css, spell and pubrules checks for all of the drafts (though I might have missed something) >> >> Links to the pre-publication drafts are on the roadmap page - please take a look at the drafts to see if you notice any errors or omissions. >> >> 1.1 Publication drafts linked from here: http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Roadmap#Next_steps_for_XML_Security_1.1 >> >> 2.0 Publication drafts linked from here: http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Roadmap#Next_steps_for_XML_Security_2.0 >> >> Worth noting is that I believe I've carried the 1.1 XML Signature changes into 2.0, so the XML Signature 2.0 status section notes those changes. In addition, since XML Signature 2.0 is changing into a W3C Note, I updated the conformance section to add a paragraph noting the document is informative - please review that this change is adequate. I also changed the 2.0 abstracts to make it clear that the documents are informative. >> >> You might also want to check the 2.0 Test Cases document to make sure the examples look right. >> >> There may be a last minute update to the RFC 4051 reference in XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature 2.0 depending on whether we obtain it from the iETF in time. >> >> Please note Thomas and I have agreed to not publish updates to the interop documents, preferring to keep them as stable publications. >> >> If you have any additional review comments to note formatting or pre-publication errors please post them to the public list by end of day tomorrow (apologies for tight deadline, draft preparation took way longer than I expected) >> >> Thanks! >> >> regards, Frederick >> >> Frederick Hirsch >> Nokia >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Innovimax SARL > Consulting, Training & XML Development > 9, impasse des Orteaux > 75020 Paris > Tel : +33 9 52 475787 > Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 > http://www.innovimax.fr > RCS Paris 488.018.631 > SARL au capital de 10.000 € >
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 17:03:45 UTC