ACTION-360
Editorial changes from Mez' xit review of December 2007 - see Related notes
- State:
- closed
- Person:
- Thomas Roessler
- Due on:
- January 25, 2008
- Created on:
- December 14, 2007
- Associated Product:
- wsc-xit
- Related emails:
- RE: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-02-13 (from weburn@hisoftware.com on 2008-02-13)
- Re: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-02-13 (from Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com on 2008-02-13)
- Re: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-02-13 (from hahnt@us.ibm.com on 2008-02-13)
- Re: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-02-13 (from maritzaj@cs.columbia.edu on 2008-02-13)
- Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-02-13 (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2008-02-12)
- ACTION-360: Mez's editorial nits; petnames in identity signal? (from tlr@w3.org on 2008-01-30)
- WSC Open Action Items (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2008-01-18)
- WSC Open Action Items (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2008-01-11)
- WSC Open Action Items (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2008-01-04)
Related notes:
[if I put anything that's not editorial, but should be an issue, in here, let me know. Mez]
SOTD
Typo - double the's
"with references to input documents that are available from the the Working Group's Wiki,"
4.2.1
Typo ont -> not
"or error pages that take the place of a Web page that could ont be retrieved."
5.5
This section totally needs a reference to 6.4.1. All the items that referred to change of security level before that, I kept trying to visualize or imagine what the requirements around that user experience were (see my comment below on CoSL). Even better, move 6.4 into 5.5. I cannot figure out why it's way down there, and I think most readers will agree with me.
5.5.4
"When an user manually enters a httpsscheme URL, "
That seems to leave out voice input. Perhaps it should say When a user explicitly inputs an https scheme url ...
6.1.1
"This [Definition: [[identity signal]] ] SHOULD be part of primary user interface during usage modes which entail the presence of signalling to the user that is different from solely page content. "
This wording confused me. I suggest changing the ending to "during usage modes which entail the presence of signalling to the user beyond only presenting page content".
6.2
"This section is applicable to secondary chrome alone and "
"Web user agents MUST provide additional security context information as described in this section through one or more user-accessible information sources. These information sources can be implemented in either primaryor secondaryuser interface. "
6.2 is internally inconsistent on the targeted user interface of this section. My proposal is to change the comment text to:
When security context information is in secondary user interface it ...
6.2
"Whether the user has visited the site in the past.
Whether the user has shown credentials to this site.
Whether the user has stored credentials for this site. "
For precision, should these be scoped to the web user agent in question? Or is that overly limiting? I lean towards the former.
6.2
An addition to the MUST list:
The [petname] for the web site.
Display change log.