W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > December 2007

RE: Review of http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-access-control-20071126/

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:43:26 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "public-appformats@w3.org" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C60FBCFCE748@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Hello Art,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> Sent: 13 December 2007 12:29
> To: Anne van Kesteren; Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Review of
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-access-control-20071126/
>
> All,
>
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:38 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> >>> I think there are some problems with introducing the same
> algorithm
> >>> non-normatively in a contrain-based style:
> >>>
> >>>   1. There might be differences
> >>>   2. It might confuse implementors
> >>
> >> What I offered doesn't present an algorithm, it was an attempt to
> >> say, explicitly, what the algorithm is intended to accomplish ('what'
> >> rather than 'how').
> >>
> >> The algorithm "does what it does" is hardly a good basis on which to
> >> review the spec.
> >
> > I think we disagree on that.
>
> I see some value in including descriptive text regarding the
> algorithms such as the "intentional" text Stuart supplied in [1].
>
> Anne - in [2], (your response to [1]) it appears you agree
> with Stuart's interpretation of the algorithm, based on the "yes"
> responses to his points. Perhaps some text like Stuart
> proposed could precede the algorithms, provided Stuart is
> willing to author the text and of course the text must not
> contradict the algorithms.

:-) I'm flexible... if the text I offered serves as is then, fine; if it needs some attention I'd be happy to respond. If the WG likes the style but wants to redraft and/or correct the content, that's fine too. Apart from all that, I'd only expect the WG to make any addition *if* it felt that it usefully improved the spec.

> Implementors and "potential implementors" of this spec -
> please send your comments on this issue (e.g. would
> "intentional" text on the algorithms add "confusion" or
> provide useful info).

FWIW, I think there is a 3rd community that could benefit from such an articulation - those faced with authoring the access control rules for a resource.

> BTW, a related issue was raised in July [3] and it remains Open.
>
> Regards, Art Barstow
> ---
>
> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Dec/0020.html>
> [2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Dec/0024.html>
> [3] <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/11>

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 13:48:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:24 GMT