Colleagues - One other thing. Merely in the interests of stylistic
consistency, why don't we have a succinct definition of "type unification" in
the Glossary, and explain how to do it in that part of the specification where
the concept is used? All the best. Tim.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Moses
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:40
AM
To: 'Simon Godik';
Subject:
RE: [xacml] xacml 1.1 draft 1
Colleagues - A handful of editorial comments.
Lines 4 and 31. This is a committee spec., not an OASIS
spec..
Line
5. Perhaps, we should just assign a document id. Let's not wait
for an OASIS numbering system.
Lines 11 - 24. Needs updating. Also suggest removing email
addresses. Also Appendix D.
Line
995. Wrong font.
Line
1950. " ... be combined by the algorithm specified by ..." becomes " ...
be combined using the algorithm specified by ..." (Just removes
repetition of "by").
Line
2612. "The selected node is different from the node types listed
above". But the list above contains constructor functions (according to
line 2583).
Lines 2635 - 2645. Non-normative language. In four place
"is" should be "SHALL be".
Lines 3107 - 3117 and lines 3130 - 3144. The phrases in the text
don't match the phrases in the table. e.g. "At least one applicable" in
the text, whereas "At least one rule value is its Effect" in the
table.
Lines 3172 - 3193. I am personally still not happy with this
explanation. I don't have a specific proposal. But, one signal
that something is wrong comes from the fact that in line 3175 we say
that "A named attribute is the term for the criteria ...". But, in
line 3180 we say that "A named attribute has specific criteria ...". Is
"attribute instance" more descriptive than "named
attribute"?
I
should point out that most of these comments apply to the original editor's
work. All the best. Tim.
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Godik
[mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003
5:05 PM
To:
Subject: [xacml]
xacml 1.1 draft 1
Here is xacml 1.1 draft 1
Please let me know if I left something
out.
Simon
