Re: Moving browser PKI forward (Re: W3C Terminates XHTML2)

2009-07-05 Thread William L. Hartzell
Anders Rundgren wrote: There is also no natural home for these issues since Mozilla, Apple, Google and Microsoft haven't heard about such requirements which is due to the fact that two-factor-authentication on the US consumer market is close to zero. In fact, in the Information Card forum which

Re: Moving browser PKI forward (Re: W3C Terminates XHTML2)

2009-07-05 Thread Anders Rundgren
William L. Hartzell wrote: >I assume that you been following IETF RFC on the Crypto subject. They >just released a series of RFC on management of keys. I have not heard of this before unless you are talking about TAM, TAMP or KEYPROV. None of these efforts have any relevance for the subject in

Re: Moving browser PKI forward (Re: W3C Terminates XHTML2)

2009-07-04 Thread William L. Hartzell
Sir: Anders Rundgren wrote: Nelson B Bolyard Wrote. This demonstrates that standardization is an option but an increasingly difficult option as well in an ever faster-moving world: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html Does it? It appears to me that this is the standards body pruning th

Moving browser PKI forward (Re: W3C Terminates XHTML2)

2009-07-04 Thread Anders Rundgren
Nelson B Bolyard Wrote. > This demonstrates that standardization is an option but an increasingly > difficult option as well in an ever faster-moving world: > http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html >Does it? >It appears to me that this is the standards body pruning the tree of >html offshoots,

Re: W3C Terminates XHTML2

2009-07-03 Thread Nelson B Bolyard
On 2009-07-03 08:39 PDT, Anders Rundgren wrote: > This demonstrates that standardization is an option but an increasingly > difficult option as well in an ever faster-moving world: > http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html Does it? It appears to me that this is the standards body pruning the tre

Re: W3C Terminates XHTML2

2009-07-03 Thread Anders Rundgren
Ian G wrote: >> I'm sure that (for example) a signature scheme done by a handful of >> committed people >> as a Firefox extension would likely do much better than a W3C or OASIS WG >> could >> even dream of. >No doubt there whatsoever. The notion that W3C or any of the other >acronyms can do a

Re: W3C Terminates XHTML2

2009-07-03 Thread Ian G
On 3/7/09 17:39, Anders Rundgren wrote: This demonstrates that standardization is an option but an increasingly difficult option as well in an ever faster-moving world: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html I'm sure that (for example) a signature scheme done by a handful of committed people

W3C Terminates XHTML2

2009-07-03 Thread Anders Rundgren
This demonstrates that standardization is an option but an increasingly difficult option as well in an ever faster-moving world: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html I'm sure that (for example) a signature scheme done by a handful of committed people as a Firefox extension would likely do mu