[OWASP-LEADERS] Owasp project standards
manavendrak at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 17 22:34:15 EST 2003
>Nice job, Manav.
>A few thoughts:
>The document begins with definitions of "should," "must," etc., but those
>don't appear to be used further in the document, excluding opening
>paragraphs. Seems we should either carry those usages forward throughout
>document, or eliminate them altogether.
I perfectly agree with that. I have carried them from the original draft by
Alex simply to make sure we either carry the usages forward (in which case
we will have to make appropriate changes in the text also), or drop them
altogether. For now, I have decided to work towards completion of the
document, and then work on the refinement.
>I followed the exchange about aspects of importance. While I agree that
>performance should be a part of correct operation, that's not necessarily
>intuitive. While we may agree with you conceptually now, I think we should
>document that in your work, so others reading this in the future understand
>that to be the case. It could be as simple as "correct operation
Makes sense. If you've not already done this change in your edits, I'll
udpate the document.
>Do the table of contents accurately reflect the entire scope of this
>document? I know we've also discussed additional processes -- wanted to
>determine if they will become part of your document, or whether additional
>documentaiton will be created.
Like I said, the document is work is progress, and hence it does not really
cover all the additional processes that we discussed. I built the table of
contents at the end, from the text within the document, and hence a lot of
stuff is missing - which is what I need to complete :-)
>The attachment below contains several grammatical and spelling edits.
Thank you once again :-)
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
More information about the OWASP-Leaders