lucien.gentis at lorraine
Dec 6, 2007, 3:37 AM
Post #3 of 9
(1363 views)
Permalink
|
Vincent Bray a écrit :
> On 03/12/2007, Lucien GENTIS <lucien.gentis [at] lorraine> wrote:
>
>> Hi to all,
>>
>
> Hey Lucien
>
>
>> Here is a proposed patch for ssl_intro.xml - trunk branch
>>
>
> I was rather hoping somebody else might deal with this as I'm not
> terribly familiar with mod_ssl, however the patch is sufficiently
> non-technical for me to stick my oar in :-)
>
> <p>Anyone can encrypt a message using the public key, but only the
> owner of the private key will be able to read it. In this way, Alice
> can send private messages to the owner of a key-pair (the bank), by
> - encrypting it using their public key. Only the bank will be able to
> - decrypt it.</p>
> + encrypting them using their public key. Only the bank will be able to
> + decrypt them.</p>
>
> That's fine.
>
> -key, only the sender knows the private key. This means that only they can
> -have signed it. Including the digest in the signature means the signature is
> +key, only the sender knows the private key. This means that only the sender can
> +have signed the message. Including the digest in the signature means
> the signature is
>
> That's fine too but the line goes a bit over length so I'll split it
> before commit.
>
> - certificate as well as one for their identity as an employee.
> + certificate as well as one for his identity as an employee.
>
> I'm not sure about this, why change to gender specific? 'Their' seems
> perfectly acceptable to me.
>
>
>> Examine the last modification : I think Alice's certificate cannot claim
>> anything, because Alice does not yet have a certificate ! (or I missed
>> something)
>>
>
> (In reference to)
>
> - person the certificate claims she is.</p>
> + person the certificate request claims she is.</p>
>
> Well ok, technically you're correct but I think the meaning is clear
> from the context.
>
> I'll commit this minus the gender gender change. I don't find gender
> specific language to be an issue but there's no need for he or she
> when a generic term works in context. Hopefully somebody else on the
> list might have an opinion either way.
>
>
In fact, it's not a gender problem ; sentence is :
"for instance, an individual might have a personal certificate as well
as one for their identity as an employee."
"their" is plural and agrees with "an individual" who's all alone ; so
"their" could rather be replaced by "his/her"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd
|
ssl_intro.xml.trunk.patch
smime.p7s
