Download File - https://fancli.com/2tlOF2
NIST requests comments on the draft fourth revision to the four-volume suite of Special Publication 800-63, Digital Identity Guidelines. This publication presents the process and technical requirements for meeting the digital identity management assurance levels specified in each volume. They also provide considerations for enhancing privacy, equity, and usability of digital identity solutions and technology.
NIST requests that all comments be submitted by 11:59 pm Eastern Time on March 24 April 14, 2023. Please submit your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org. Comments are requested on all four draft publications: 800-63-4, 800-63A-4, 800-63B-4, and 800-63C-4.
See the Note to Reviewers below for specific topics about which NIST is seeking your feedback. NIST will review all comments and make them available on the NIST Identity and Access Management website.
As of August 2021, the Committee has adopted seven general comments. The full list of adopted general comments are available in the database. Supporting documents on the most recent general comments and submissions received throughout the drafting processes are available below.
Request for Comments in Four-Year Review of Actions Docket - The USTR portal for submitting comments in the Four-Year Review of Actions opened November 15, 2022. Comments must be received by January 17, 2023 at 11:59 PM EST.
Some teams strongly prefer a longer line length. For code maintainedexclusively or primarily by a team that can reach agreement on thisissue, it is okay to increase the line length limit up to 99 characters,provided that comments and docstrings are still wrapped at 72characters.
Block comments generally apply to some (or all) code that followsthem, and are indented to the same level as that code. Each line of ablock comment starts with a # and a single space (unless it isindented text inside the comment).
We will not post policies or sections thereof containing information that is law enforcement sensitive, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. We are not required to solicit public comment on Policy Manual content under the Administrative Procedure Act and, therefore, we will generally not respond to any comments submitted. This informal opportunity to provide feedback does not replace any statutory or other legal requirement for public comment on agency action.
Attaching your comments to specific parts of a document makes your feedback more clear. If someone else is commenting on the document, replying to their comments lets you have a discussion, even when you're not all in the document at the same time.
The Administrative Procedure Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001) requires the notice published in the Texas Register to include a brief explanation of the proposed rule and a request for comments from any interested person. The notice also includes instructions for submitting comments regarding the rule to the agency, including the date by which comments must be submitted. Agencies must give interested persons \"a reasonable opportunity\" to submit comments. The public comment period begins on the day after the notice of a proposed rule is published in the Texas Register and lasts for a minimum of 30 calendar days.
You can use text edit comments in a PDF to indicate where text should be edited in the source file. Text edit comments do not change the actual text in the PDF. Instead, they indicate which text should be deleted, inserted, or replaced in the source file from which the PDF was created.
In AcrobatPro on Windows, you can export text edit comments directlyto an Autodesk AutoCAD document that thePDF is based on to incorporate your edits. To use this feature,you must use PDFMaker in AutoCAD to create the PDF.
C# provides a mechanism for programmers to document their code using a comment syntax that contains XML text. In source code files, comments having a certain form can be used to direct a tool to produce XML from those comments and the source code elements, which they precede. Comments using such syntax are called documentation comments. They must immediately precede a user-defined type (such as a class, delegate, or interface) or a member (such as a field, event, property, or method). The XML generation tool is called the documentation generator. (This generator could be, but need not be, the C# compiler itself.) The output produced by the documentation generator is called the documentation file. A documentation file is used as input to a documentation viewer; a tool intended to produce some sort of visual display of type information and its associated documentation.
This specification suggests a set of standard tags to be used in documentation comments, but use of these tags is not required, and other tags may be used if desired, as long as the rules of well-formed XML are followed. For C# implementations targeting the CLI, it also provides information about the documentation generator and the format of the documentation file. No information is provided about the documentation viewer.
Comments having a certain form can be used to direct a tool to produce XML from those comments and the source code elements that they precede. Such comments are Single-Line_Comments (6.3.3) that start with three slashes (///), or Delimited_Comments (6.3.3) that start with a slash and two asterisks (/**). They must immediately precede a user-defined type or a member that they annotate. Attribute sections (21.3) are considered part of declarations, so documentation comments must precede attributes applied to a type or member.
For expository purposes, the format of document comments is shown below as two grammar rules: Single_Line_Doc_Comment and Delimited_Doc_Comment. However, these rules are not part of the C# grammar, but rather, they represent particular formats of Single_Line_Comment and Delimited_Comment lexer rules, respectively.
The text within documentation comments must be well formed according to the rules of XML ( -xml). If the XML is ill formed, a warning is generated and the documentation file will contain a comment saying that an error was encountered.
The tag is used to describe parameters. If such a tag is used, the documentation generator must verify that the specified parameter exists and that all parameters are described in documentation comments. If such verification fails, the documentation generator issues a warning.
The Eclipse Public License is similar to the Common Public License, and ourcomments on the CPL apply equally to the EPL. The only change is thatthe EPL removes the broader patent retaliation language regarding patentinfringement suits specifically against Contributors to the EPL'dprogram.
This license is identical to the Yahoo! PublicLicense 1.1, except that the license is provided by VMWare insteadof Yahoo!. Our comments there apply here as well; this is aGPL-incompatible, partial copyleft free software license.
Comments received, including any personal information provided, may be posted without change to -register-publications/. Commenters should submit only information that the commenter wishes to make available publicly. The FDIC may review, redact, or refrain from posting all or any portion of any comment that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as irrelevant or obscene material. The FDIC may post only a single representative example of identical or substantially identical comments, and in such cases will generally identify the number of identical or substantially identical comments represented by the posted example. All comments that have been redacted, as well as those that have not been posted, that contain comments on the merits of this notice will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under all applicable laws. All comments may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.
Comments can be added directly to single Blueprint nodes, or they can be added as comment boxes to group related nodes and provide descriptions about their functionality. These can be used solely for organizational purposes to make the Graphs more readable, but they can also be used for informational purposes as they allow for textual descriptions to be added just like adding comments to code.
When you write code, it is a good practice to add comments that describe the code. Comments allow others to understand your code and can refresh your memory when you return to it later. During code development and testing, you also can use comments to comment out any code that does not need to run.
The Editor and Live Editor include tools and context menu items to help you add, remove, or change the format of comments for MATLAB, Java, and C/C++ code. For example, suppose that you have this lengthy text into a commented line.% This is a code file that has a comment that is a little more than 75 columns wide.disp('Hello, world')With the cursor on the line, go to Editor or Live Editor tab, and in the Code section, click the wrap comments button . The comment wraps to the next line:% This is a code file that has a comment that is a little more than 75% columns wide.disp('Hello, world')
The adoption of entrustment ratings in medical education is based on a seemingly simple premise: to align workplace-based supervision with resident assessment. Yet it has been difficult to operationalize this concept. Entrustment rating forms combine numeric scales with comments and are embedded in a programmatic assessment framework, which encourages the collection of a large quantity of data. The implicit assumption that more is better has led to an untamable volume of data that competency committees must grapple with. In this article, the authors explore the roles of numbers and words on entrustment rating forms, focusing on the intended and optimal use(s) of each, with a focus on the words. They also unpack the problematic issue of dual-purposing words for both assessment and feedback. Words have enormous potential to elaborate, to contextualize, and to instruct; to realize this potential, educators must be crystal clear about their use. The authors set forth a number of possible ways to reconcile these tensions by more explicitly aligning words to purpose. For example, educators could focus written comments solely on assessment; create assessment encounters distinct from feedback encounters; or use different words collected from the same encounter to serve distinct feedback and assessment purposes. Finally, the authors address the tyranny of documentation created by programmatic assessment and urge caution in yielding to the temptation to reduce words to numbers to make them manageable. Instead, they encourage educators to preserve some educational encounters purely for feedback, and to consider that not all words need to become data. 59ce067264