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

Re: [access-control] update from the editor

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:56:12 +0200
Message-Id: <1803642E-8DD5-4370-B4C3-EB2F46DE6E4F@berjon.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

On Jun 07, 2007, at 01:13, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> This one is tricky for sure.

I don't think it is all that tricky, sometimes you just have to let  
go. You don't want the AC spec to be specifying parsing strategies.  
You may want to *recommend* what to do depending on the parsing  
strategy (if tree-based and the document is not WF, AC is not  
processed; if stream-based and the document is not WF it doesn't  
matter, process AC as soon as you see it and *if* you keep reading  
the document then revoke it upon encountering a WF error), and you  
*may* want to point out that the streaming approach is best but I  
really wouldn't go any farther as I don't think there's any good  
decision here. IIRC the REX spec has that sort of weaseling  
somewhere, you might want to check it out.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RDF is like violence: if it doesn't work, use more!
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 15:06:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:22 GMT