Agreed -- another exchange I've had suggests different possible
interpretations of "non-alterable" (to my mind, what you describe comes as
a part of "authentication", but maybe "integrity verified" or similar
should also be stated).
>>>E. Capabilities exchange between sender and recipient
>>I suggest: "Document format selection based on confirmed capabilities of
>>sender and/or receiver". ("capability exchange" sounds more like a
>>solution than a goal.)
>
>Not sure this fits in the goals section, but I think we should ensure we
>have a lowest common denominator set of capabilities to ensure that any
>sender and recever pair can successfully exchange a document and have the
>receiver render it faithfully.
Agreed.
I view "capability" mechanisms as a way to lift above a chosen baseline.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)