Re: Some minor edits

Hello Vamsi,

First of all, many thanks for your thorough check. I did all the changes
except for some where I'm uncertain. 

See my inline comments.

Thanks!

-jose

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 01:36:35PM -0400, Vamsi Motukuru wrote:
 
> Page 1: Copyright year should be 2005

Fixed and reported this and requested update of the patent boilerplate
I used :)
 
> Page 1/2: Comments about <ins> and <del> tags should be stripped

These comments were not there anymore since Monday. Maybe we had 
some mirroring problems and you saw a previous version. 
 
> Page 2: Should language describing the "CR" status be present in a "PR"

Did you saw this in the Status of DOcument Section? I updated it
yesterday. Again, maybe it was a mirroring problem.

> Page 3: Should TOC include link to Working Draft (08/26/2003)

No :) I just left it there for a while. When we publish it we'll put
the actual links and remove the link to the WD.

>         Inconsistency in using singular ("Message") versus plurals 
> ("Messages") i.e   3.2 Request Message vs 3.3 Response Messages

I fixed it in 3.2, 3.3., and in the ToC to use "Message". I didn't find
other places in the document, but I only did an emacs search for the
strings.
 
>         Sections 4.1 and 4.2 contain the XKISS prefix but XKRSS is not 
> used in Sections 6.1 .. 6.4

Decided to remove XKISS, rather than to add XKRSS.

> [23] The XML Schema in the prefix table should specify "xsi" as the prefix.
> 
>      "Cannonicalization" is misspelt.

Fixed both.

> [26] Update the <documentation> element content to reflect PR status.

Good catch! Updated it and checked the .xsd. It was already updated. I
just changed PR to Proposed Recommendation in the schema.

> [36] Section XX description contains some lines that are not terminated
>      with a "." This inconsistancy occurs at numerous places in the spec.

I made some passes at the spec. to fix this. I also added
Three &nbsp; between each element definition and its conditional.

> [45] "ID" should be "Id"

Fixed.

> [57] Font face for "failure" in the Requestor processing of the Pending
>      Response Message is incorrect

Fixed. I noticed that there were many places which used <font
face="Courier"> rather than <span class="ID">. I fixed all of them
so that they use <span class="ID">. I also removed duplicates 
wherever I found them, such as <font ...><span ...>...</span></font>
I added spaces where needed when I saw them missing (maybe some are still
missing).
 
> [63/64] Use of "two phase" is inconsistant. Sometimes it is 2 phase or
>     two-phase.

Made it two-phase throughout (added the hyphen when missing, put
everything in lowercase, except in the titles).
 
>      Last sentence contains words that are not separated by a 
> whitespace. This happens at many other places in the spec esecially when 
> the font face changes.

Fixed. See comments for [57]. If you find another place where the words
are missing whitespace, please tell me so. It may be something else.
> 
> [2.8.1.2 Response1]
>      Service URI in LocateResult is http://test.xmltrustcenter.org/XKMS
>      which does not correlate with the LocateRequest

Fixed. Using www.example.org/XKMS. There was a second Service URI that
had this problem. I also fixed it.
 
> [100] anyURI needs to be in correct font

Fixed.

> [104] "anyURIS" should be "anyURIs"

This is weird. The source code says <span class="id">anyURI</span>s,
but in opera and mozilla, this is rendered as anyURIS. In Amaya and
Konqueror, it comes out as anyURIs. This seems to be a browser error.
Under mac, a colleague reports that opera, safari and firefox render it 
as lowecase. Which browser did you use? We can always put the s inside
the span.

>       In the X509Chain description, "certificatesa" should be
>       "certificates"

Fixed.
 
> [125] The "ds:signature/ds:signatureValue" representation format syntax
>       should be replaced by a textual description for consistancy

Not yet fixed. I'll ask Shivaram to contribute the text or I'll look at it
later.
 
> [147] Service URI is http://test.xmltrustcenter.org/XKMS

Fixed.

> [173] Font face of "Id" is not correct

Fixed.

 
> [179] "If more than <UseKeyWith> element is specified" should be
>        "If more than one <UseKeyWith> element is specified"

Fixed.
 
> [182] Table entry PKIX Type description should be "X.500 Distinguished 
> Name".
> 
> [186] X.509 should be replaced by X.500

I'm confused here. The xmlsig spec states "X.509 distinguished names". I
wonder if X.509v3 redefined what is a DN, e.g., simplifying it from the
X.500 definition.  Looking on the web, it seems some people say X.509 DN
and other people X.500 DN. 

I don't have the X.509v3 spec. here right now. Could you verify before I
make the change? If it's X.500, then that's what it will be.

-jose