search

readium / lcp-specs

🔐 Releases, drafts and schema for Readium LCP
https://readium.org/lcp-specs/
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
10 stars 5 forks source link

Fix/wording muratam #40

Closed llemeurfr closed 5 years ago

llemeurfr commented 5 years ago

This PR contains proposed fixes for #18, #19, #23, #24 and #26

It also contains the addition of a registry file for Encryption Profiles, and a small fix to the LSD spec = remove the CSS rules now included in the Jekyll layout.

HadrienGardeur commented 5 years ago

This should be labeled as a new revision and therefore:

Do we know if TEA has defined its own profile or used any additional rel that should be added to our registries?

llemeurfr commented 5 years ago

The updates which were pushed yesterday directly on master are so new that we can keep the same revision number IMO.

llemeurfr commented 5 years ago

I'll merge this PR before I propose other modifications (for #25 and Daniel's issues). Waiting for Makoto's remarks on this PR until tomorrow.

murata2makoto commented 5 years ago

In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th bullets in 5.5.1, I would like to replace "it" by "The Reading System".

"All Encryption Profiles must be registered in the LCP Encryption Profiles registry." implies that this registry is normative.

How about "See example encryption profiles, available at the LCP Encryption Profiles registry."?

llemeurfr commented 5 years ago

I followed your advice fo the precision added in 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 ("It" replaced by "The Reading System").

The encryption profiles in the registry are not examples; encryption profiles used in the wild should be listed there for the sake of extensibility ; but I still don't want the registry to become normative (because of the burden it would be vs ISO rules). In 6.1 (introduction, informative) on line 854 we already see "All future official or vendor-specific extensions will also define such an Encryption Profile for easy identification by Reading Systems and publish such profiles in the LCP Encryption Profiles Registry". I think we can refine this sentence and remove the normative line 872 is 6.2.

llemeurfr commented 5 years ago

I have just proposed a rewording of 6.1 and deleted the problematic sentence in 6.2. Please advise if you agree with it, so I can merge this PR (we will be able to refine again this part later).