- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:04:16 -0400
- To: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, "Donald Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>
At 23:31 10/17/2000 -0700, Susan Lesch wrote: >Here are just a few comments for your Last Call "XML-Signature >Syntax and Processing" Working Draft [1]. Hi Susan, thanks for your comments. >Globally, Base64, base 64, and base-64 can read "base64" (no cap). Ok. Fixed the one remaining base-64. In english text moved Base64 to lower case, retained lower case in URIs. >"Canonical XML" needn't be capitalized unless it refers to the All instances I found refer to spec. >Canonical XML spec, and "canonicalization" can also be lowercase. fixed one instance of that. >Also globally, "transform"(s) can be lowercase unless it refers >to a Transform(s) element (in which case you have it marked up ><code>). Same for "signature." Fixed about ~6 of Transform; one of signature, otherwise XML Signature is retained. >4.3.3.2 pars. 6, 7 and 8 >URI-Reference -> URI reference (four times) That is a purposeful term used from section 4 of http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt. >4.3.3.4 par. 4 >MimeType, Charset -> MIME type, charset >or <code>MimeType</code>, charset ok. >6.5 par. 3 >We RECOMMENDED -> We RECOMMEND >(I didn't understand why it was past tense that time.) ok. >6.6.2 last par. >element<strike class="fix">s</strike> -> element ok. >6.6.5 >stylesheet -> style sheet (three times) http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xsl-20000327/xslspec.html uses "stylesheet" ? but when I speak in general I seperated them. >7.0 last par. >Normalized Form C -> Normalization Form C I believe it is Normalized Form C. http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr15/tr15-18.html >In References, all the RFCs could be listed the same way. I don't >know the preferred way yet, and used commas and the space between >RFC and 2119 in this example: RFC 2119, Key words for use in RFCs to >Indicate Requirement Levels, S. Bradner, March 1997. Could you provide a citation that this is the proper way? Regardless, Don did the RFCs and I think they are consistent amongst themselves, though not with other references. >4.3.3.4 par. 5 >domain.Transform -> domain. Transform ok. >Best wishes for your project, Thank you! __ Regards, http://www.mit.edu/~reagle/ Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E MIT LCS Research Engineer at the World Wide Web Consortium. * This email is from an independent academic account and is not necessarily representative of my affiliations.
Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2000 17:38:25 UTC