Re: Last minute language nit on clear signing

[Jon Callas <[e-mail]>]

On 3 May 2006, at 3:30 PM, David Shaw wrote:

>
> Squeaking in under the wire.
>
> Section 7, Cleartext signature framework says:
>
>     It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII
>     armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable
>     without special software.
>
> Suggest "It is sometimes desirable to sign ..."
>
> (i.e. add a "sometimes".  It's not always desirable to clearsign).
>

That really is a nit, and one that I disagree with. I will also admit  
to crotchetiness today.

Saying "X is desirable" does not imply "~X is undesirable." There is  
a middle ground between, "It's desirable to be able to park at the  
airport" and "Taxis should be banned." Saying, I like ice cream does  
not imply that I hate flan. I read that 'graph as saying  
"Clearsigning, good." That's it.

Here's a counterproposal: "It is desirable to be able to sign..."  
thus explicitly saying that it's an option. How's that? Better, worse  
than yours? Or should we just leave it as is?

	Jon