[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [ws-sx] RE: Issue PR033: plural agreement
I do not think this one is correct. From my reading of the
current text there isn’t a plural agreement issue. Here is the current text: /sp:UsernameToken/wst:Claims This optional element
identifies the required claims that a security token must contain in
order to satisfy the token assertion requirements. The proposal below would change this to: /sp:UsernameToken/wst:Claims This optional element
identifies the required claims that a security token must contain in order to satisfy
all token assertion requirements. Maybe I’m misreading this issue and the proposed text
is really: This optional element
identifies all required claims that a security token must contain in
order to satisfy the token assertion requirements. I think the proposed language to correct the perceived plural
agreement issue introduces a subtle shift in meaning that isn’t intended.
I propose we close this one with no action. Subject: Issue PR033: plural agreement
[[ gleaned from the spreadsheet of SP PR comments posted at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx-comment/200704/msg00000.html
]] Protocol: ws-securitypolicy http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/ws-securitypolicy-1.2-spec-cd-02-diff.pdf Artifact: spec / schema Type: editorial Title: plural agreement Description: lines 840, 908, 989, 1076, 1137,1199, 1275, 1397, 1468,
1534: “This optional element identifies the required claims
that a security token must contain in order to satisfy the token assertion
requirements” Related issues: None. Proposed Resolution: lines 840, 908, 989, 1076, 1137,1199, 1275, 1397, 1468,
1534: Remove "the" or replace with "all" |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]