httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vincent Bray" <nood...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: proposed patch for ssl_intro.xml
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:05:19 GMT
On 03/12/2007, Lucien GENTIS <lucien.gentis@lorraine.iufm.fr> 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.

-- 
noodl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message