Hi,
I would like to republish the Widgets Dig Sig specification as LC (in
preparation for moving it to PR):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
I have also recreated the test suite to match the new specification:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/test-suite/
Kind regards,
Editorial comments, section 9 #4 typo Optionaly, also formatting in section
9 item 3 number 7.
You might want dates for the SIgnature 1.1 and Signature Properties References?
Relying on XML Signature 1.1 for normative algorithm requirements is sensible
in my personal opinion.
regards,
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2011 at 8:19 PM, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
Marcos
I'd suggest you first send an email with the top 10 substantive changes to
the list, e.g. which algorithms change from mandatory to
On Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 12:00 AM, timeless wrote:
It's pretty much impossible for me to figure out which things are new
or which i've missed in previous rounds. (It's also possible that I
didn't review this spec, in which case, I'm sorry.) I don't believe
these comments significantly
On Friday, April 29, 2011 at 8:19 PM, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
Marcos
I'd suggest you first send an email with the top 10 substantive changes to
the list, e.g. which algorithms change from mandatory to optional or optional
to mandatory etc, which processing rules you are
It's pretty much impossible for me to figure out which things are new
or which i've missed in previous rounds. (It's also possible that I
didn't review this spec, in which case, I'm sorry.) I don't believe
these comments significantly affect the document, i.e. they're mostly
editorial, although
Marcos
I'd suggest you first send an email with the top 10 substantive changes to the
list, e.g. which algorithms change from mandatory to optional or optional to
mandatory etc, which processing rules you are relaxing, etc
this would take less time for you and be much clearer to all.
thanks
Hi Marcos,
On Apr/25/2011 11:53 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and I'm
finding that there is a lot of redundancies and inconsistencies with the way it
is written. Although the conformance requirements are fairly clear
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Marcos,
On Apr/25/2011 11:53 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and
I'm finding that there is a lot of redundancies and inconsistencies with
the way
On Apr/26/2011 7:40 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Marcos,
On Apr/25/2011 11:53 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and I'm
finding that there is a lot of redundancies
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Well, you started with a relatively ambiguous characterization of a need
to eliminate redundancies and inconsistencies and now I see you think
the spec as written has resulted in willful violations of the spec and
of course those
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and I'm
finding that there is a lot of redundancies and inconsistencies with the way it
is written. Although the conformance requirements are fairly clear, the main
problem is that the spec is a bit confused when it comes
12 matches
Mail list logo
