Hi all, Thanks for your feedback so far. We're definitely reading. I'm taking a few days off at the moment, but I'll get back to you all with more detailed responses next week. Meanwhile, thanks to those who jumping in to answer questions where you can.
Cheers, Alex 2009/10/2 Tad Glines <[email protected]> > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Tad Glines <[email protected]> wrote: > > Another question: including the "contributor" element in the blib > > would seem to allow simple forgery (which allows for phishing). Any > > wave client should instead display as contributor the id of all > > participants for which there is a delta modifying that blip. > > In the spec it states: "Individual contributors are responsible for > adding themselves to this list. This allows for "trivial" contributors > such as annotators to voluntarily omit themselves. Absolute > contributor information may be recovered from the operation history if > required." > > Despite the extra processing required, I still think a secure client > should present history validated contributor information. An annotator > should not be able to hide from a user who wishes to know about ALL > contributors. Especially in a case where an annotation alters the > meaning of a blip through style changes (e.g. changing the font size > and color of text to cause content to not be user visible). > > -Tad > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
