Thanks for the review of my review Replies inline
>-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of timeless >Sent: 07 April 2009 08:01 >To: Priestley, Mark, VF-Group >Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps >Subject: Re: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital >Signatures spec published on March 31 > >Mark Priestley wrote: >> Change to: >> >> "Thus in the case that one or more distributor signatures were > >surely you mean 'more than one' That would be more accurate, yes :) > >> validated, the highest numbered distributor signature would be >> validated first." > >do you really mean 'were validated', or do you mean 'are >available for validation'? I really mean processed as validated implies success. Suggest to use processed instead. > >> "Implementations MUST be prepared to accept X.509 v3 certificates >> [RFC5280]." >> >> Can we say "User agents" rather than implementations > >A validator is an implementation, but not a useragent. Hmm, isn't a User Agent (as defined in the specification) something that implements the specification? >
