Marcos
I checked in another revision to fix the broken link in 7. 2 (last
sentence included s in span) and to fix various validation errors.
The latest revision looks ok to me now, version 1.85 of
Overview.src.html, version 1.93 of Overview.html
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 25, 2009, at 7:35 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Frederick,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Frederick Hirsch
<frederick.hir...@nokia.com> wrote:
Marcos
Thanks for taking this pass.
I note a number of editorial corrections that I believe should be
made
before publishing:
1. Introduction should not have normative statements, and these
replicate
material later in the document, so change "MAY" to "can" in 2 places.
2. Section 4, #4, change "must" to "MUST"
fixed
3. Section 4, #6, change "Security" to "security"
fixed
4. Section 5.3.1, include blank line between bullet with DIGIT and
next
bullet
fixed
5. Section 6, replace ".." with "." in editorial note
fixed
6. Section 6.1, change "DSAwithSHA" to "DSAwithSHA1"
fixed
7. Section 7.2, change link to be from "signature file", it is
currently
broken
seemed ok? replaced it anyway.
8. End of section 8, remove example from sentence, change "For
example,
end-users" to "End-users" and combine with previous paragraph.
Done.
9. Add note to [XMLDSIG-Properties] reference as follows (at end of
reference entry):
Note, section 9 includes additions made in the XML Security WG to
the XML
Signature Properties editors draft (subsequent to First Public
Working
Draft) that are used in this specification.
Done.
---
I also suggest you make sure that all changes in the working draft
are also
reflected in what is checked into the Editors draft in CVS so we
can make
changes as needed without losing these latest changes for the
working draft
(the only difference need be the setting as editors vs working
draft I
think).
Done.
I also notice on a substantive level that you changed the
namespace. Was the
reason to match a pre-existing choice for the Packaging and
Configuration?
Is this an item for discussion?
Yes, I did that today but never got around to sending out an email
about it. Sorry. The change was to put it inline with P&C. Do you see
any issues arising from the new NS? should I change it back? I'm of
the position that NSs should not be dated because changing NS and,
hence semantics, for elements in the future is probably a bad idea.
The other changes looked good, thanks for improving the draft.
My pleasure! Thanks for doing all the hard work and actual
thinking! :)
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
