On 5/23/11 2:23 PM, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
Editorial comments, section 9 #4 typo "Optionaly", also formatting in section
9 item 3 number 7.
Fixed.
You might want dates for the SIgnature 1.1 and Signature Properties References?
I'm only putting dates on specs that have reached
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, Fred
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,
Marc
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Marcos Caceres 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 optional or
>>
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 a
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 som
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 re
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
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
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 re
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 inconsis
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
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 i
13 matches
Mail list logo
